Potential Rapist Syndrome

A crooked-faced atheist chick has set the net aflame with a tragic tale of threatening elevator courtship that could rival Caylee Anthony’s death by single mom. According to her, an inept atheist nerd propositioned her in a hotel elevator, which caused her to nearly faint with an attack of the vapors, like any equalist gender-normed feminist would do. In brief, a man entered the elevator with her at 4AM after a “skeptics” conference had ended, and proceeded to awkwardly and nervously ask her out to coffee, which she declined.

Yep, that’s the whole story. Riveting stuff, ain’t it?

But the important thing to understand is how Indignant Atheist Chick FELT. To use her words, she felt

Uncooooomfortable.

Poor dear. And then right on cue a chorus of feminist commenters chimed in with accusations that the awkward elevator man was a potential rapist.

For a replay of the characters involved, here’s a withering rundown of the sordid affair, including links to limp-wristed nancyboys who couldn’t wait to jump like little doggies begging for table scraps from approving feminists.

Potential Rapist Syndrome is a mind virus infecting the brains of put-upon feminists all over America and Sweden. The slightest effrontery by a man not immediately deemed a charismatic alpha male by the woman victim causes the virus to multiply rapidly, resulting in flawed reasoning that imputes the worst possible motives to innocuous, if unattractively nerdy, male behavior. Using the illogic of this mind virus, any action that a man takes in attempt to pick up a woman is potential rape as long as she feels it is.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in the park? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a bar? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out here or there? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a house? With a mouse? Potential rapist.

Did he make her feel uncomfortable asking her out in a box? With a fox? Potential rapist.

Richard Dawkins was right. This is female hamster-fueled solipsism to the nth degree. The growth industry of Entitled American Bitches is feeding this female martyrdom indulgence in believing the Western world is out to get them. Only a foul bitch so full of herself, so enamored of her precious biological cargo, could wilt at the imaginary prospect that any man who awkwardly asks her out is itching to rape her before the elevator stops at the next floor. Hey Indignant Atheist Chick, Hogwarts called; they want their magical thinking back.

PRS is very similar to PMS in its symptoms. Women lose all logic and reason to a flood of hormones and emotional hysteria, rendering them unsuitable conversational partners until the episode has passed. Do not under any circumstance try to comfort a woman in the throes of PRS, or otherwise try to redeem your “inappropriate” behavior to make her feel better. She will simply lash out with increased rage, incoherent to everyone but herself, other sufferers of PRS and thimble-chubbed beta wankers hoping to sneak in their pants under cover of empathy. A woman experiencing PRS hates the mass of bumbling men for not knowing how to properly satisfy her desires for interaction with an aloof and charming alpha male. Like the PMS victim, any attempt to assuage her irrational torment will be met with an icy stare at best, and thrown objects at worst. Pointing out the flaws in the PRS sufferer’s anti-logic will be perceived by her as an act of psychological war, an imposition of your rigid male sexuality upon her enlightened female vulnerability and purity. Proceed with indifference.

Maxim #48: The feminist loathing of male desire is at the root of all their complaining about men and the dating scene. Feminists, in their hearts, despise the freedom and longevity of male sexuality. And they particularly despise that freedom when lowly beta males attempt to exercise it.

Thus ends the cultural dissolution portion of today’s lecture, and begins the game portion. Given the above, it will surprise some of the readers that this blog holds little sympathy for Inept Elevator Nerd. Asking a woman out for coffee before you’ve won her interest is bad game. Asking her out in an elevator at 4AM when she has nowhere to escape is bad game. Doing all of it with the nervousness of a beta herb who hasn’t had any for years is ZERO GAME.

Direct game of the sort that elevator dude “ran” is best used in open spaces where the woman won’t feel cornered. It’s good pickup strategy to give a woman the feeling of being able to freely excuse herself if she finds your hard sell lacking. A woman is more likely to allow her intrigue to flower if the man who approaches her with directness knows that she values an easy out should she need it. It’s an implied understanding that only men who have experience bedding women will know, and women know this.

Indirect game is better for enclosed spaces like elevators where the first goal is to make the woman feel comfortable in your presence. (Some pickup artists have successfully run direct game in elevators, but it requires a healthy dose of charisma and cocky humor, as well as the social savvy to defuse the inherent tension of small spaces. For example: “Oh, wow, an awkward elevator ride, just like in the movies. I’m getting off in three floors, so I’d better make my flirting count!”)

A man who directly approaches a woman in a context that offers her an unmessy exit is, in the woman’s hindbrain, a confident man unafraid of potential rejection. This is a tacit demonstration of higher value that will immediately set the tone of the pickup in the man’s favor. In contrast, a man who directly approaches a woman in a context that affords her no quick, polite escape is, in the woman’s mind and likely in reality as well, a desperate beta who needs to corner a woman to win an audience with her. She will easily and seamlessly rationalize this awkward behavior on his part as the machinations of a rapist’s mind.

Whenever you worry that the principles of game will become too well-known and overused by men, just remember Inept Elevator Nerd. The world is teeming with men like him who have zero clue how women work. Your worries that game will increase the competition above and beyond what female obesity is creating for the few remaining slender chicks in existence are unfounded. Inept Elevator Nerds continue to roam the plains in vast, undifferentiated numbers.

When in doubt about the goodness and righteousness of game, remember the fundamental rule of female magical thinking, gentlemen:

Zorro just reminded me, it’s going to be funny to watch the herd of ass pained atheist responses.

Does god exist to me? I don’t know or care for that matter. I have more important things to worry about, such as hygiene, masturbation, and wondering if I want to switch my Tuesday girl for my Friday one because she likes to wake up me up with head then cook me breakfast.

Attaching labels to your behavior is one thing, but attaching them to your fucking thought processes? When LITERALLY no one with a truly rational mind gives a fuck?

This isn’t a forum for unleashing your angst and love for a god damn hipster fad, take that whiny bullshit somewhere else.

I checked out her picture and she looks like a nerd. The comment war that included Richard Dawkins was a ridiculous waste of the time I spent reading it. I should know better than reading a whining fest from lefties in their 30’s and 40’s.

This is the guy at the bar who won’t shut the fuck up. Luckily YouTube comes with a pause button.

Are all village atheists logorrheic exhibitionists or is this motormouth twit not representative of the type? So much hot air generated by such windbags over such stupid self-righteous indignation, now captured and stored forever on the web. And doughboy thinks his sophistry is substantially distinguishable from nerdgirl?

There is no God! Let’s have a conference about it. Then let’s make a YouTube about it. And then another YouTube about the YouTube with a little fat man with whining passionately about nothing. Explain again how much more perceptive you are than us rubes about the foundation of existence…. We can’t get enough….

I made it about a minute-and-a-half. Then skipped around for another total of 30 seconds. Some people really volunteered themselves to be cornered by this drunkalogue for the full quarter hour? And they think church is boring?

Can you even read his post? He never said he went to the dictionary, he said you were a dumbfuck from dictionary.com. In case you don’t understand insults, he’s saying you’re too stupid to know those words so you went and looked something fancy up to type and make yourself seem smarter.

I watched the full video with relish and it’s clear this guy is more an ally against the feminists than you’ve been so far. “Christian” men like yourself have been doing very little to fight the enemy and you know that most western churches are controlled by fems, manginas or White Knighters (with very little daylight between these denominations). It’s also off topic for you to feel angered by the existence of atheists. That anger would best be expressed on a Bible blog. Whether they feel you’re a rube or not is not related to the fact that you should want male atheists to at least have a pair where feminism is concerned. The enemy of your true enemy is supposed to be your friend (except it seems your true enemies are atheists and not feminists).

I’m not an atheist and I’m very comfortable in churches outside the control of the feminist west. But I don’t see atheists as enemies at all. I think the Austrian guy is great who just won the right to put a spaghetti strainer on his head for his driver’s license photo (because he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

And I’d like to see more atheists in the Republican Party battling the likes of Michele Bachmann.

Atheists aren’t my enemy. They’re the ones refusing alliance. Benedict XVI suggested some terms of possible rapprochement at Regensberg against another postmodern scourge equal to feminism, Islamism, but of course the totalitarian nihilist mindset considers any compromise with the hilarious Spaghetti Heads as total capitulation. Preserving a sophomoric right to their smirk is more important to the so-called advocates of reason than a reasonable unification of mission. Hence their shacking-up with feminists exposed by this little web imbroglio.

Atheists are negatively defined (note the ‘a’ before the ‘theist’). They cease to have an identity absent our posited architecture. They can’t reconcile with us without denying their identity, dependent though it is. They are shallow and presumptuous with little training in the fundamental questions of the universe that kindergarten kids are exposed to in catechism class. Their latter-day lecturing about what’s what and that’s that is beneath the notice of a tradition of robust inquiry going back thousands of years.

But on the internet? They band together in a communion of ignorance and feed off each other without ever having to face the tough paradoxes of existence: Why is there something rather than nothing? How are you self-aware? Some people are too stupid to understand the vital importance of some questions, much less have a capacity ask them.

What “church” are you going to, by the way? The ones with the priestesses in lavender cassocks and queer bishops preaching to dying congregations? Or the ones who honor men as heads of households, insist as a rule leadership be 100% male, define male dignity through inerrant and unchangeable scripture, and have historically battled against feminist overreach in every dimension while every other institution surrendered? What other refuge do you imagine exists for anti-feminism? A fat guy making YouTubes?

You are staging those existential questions like if you’re the only one smart enough to think deeply about them. Let me teach you something: atheists were for the majority of them just like you, presomptuous smugs blabbering about their high intelligence and the stupidity of others who refuse to adhere to obscure teachings of talented attention seekers a few milleniums ago.
Atheists are the ones who asked themselves truthfully the questions that you mentionned, enlightened by science and EVOLUTION (The striking blow to all of your delusions), or are you just one of those retards talking about us descending from adam and eve who lived among the dinosaures 6000 years ago.
Moron!

Having said that, I only originally noticed the existence of the “atheist community” when Derek Miller, the atheist Canadian blogger who wrote for 5 years about his colon cancer, died in May. If you haven’t read his archives, which anyone can relate to because cancer can happen to any of us, the highlights were that he refused to try any treatment the Canadian medical system wasn’t recommending and he craved processed cheese and Diet Coke down to the bitter end (I’m not noting this with any disrespect for the dead).

Some of his final words were “I only regret that I won’t live to see the day, hopefully coming soon, when men evolve enough not to objectify women’s bodies” (I am noting this with disrespect).

That was my reaction, too. And if you’re going to rant about something like that, it helps to actually have some facts at your disposal. Most of the stuff he said about “churches” (which as we all know are indistinguishable in their doctrines, right?) is flat-out wrong.

I’m no atheist but this guy is right on target. Rebecca Watson needs to learn to live with the consquences of her philosophy. To wit —

(1) In the absence of religious belief, men have no reason to restrain their sexual impulses. If atheists or skeptics find a girl sexually attractive, they will make a play for her. Why not?

[Indeed, why are atheist conferences mostly male anyway? Could it be that the are just a bunch of horny guys who ditched God because He got in the way of the sex lives they wished to have? Did they go atheist for sound intellectual reasons, or did they simply change their creed to match their (attempted) conduct?]

(2) Her own philosophy gives her no compelling reason to say “no” to such an approach, other than, she just doesn’t want to — and how can a man possibly know that in advance?

(3) How can she complain about being “sexualized” after posing nude for a calendar? Truth is, she has SELF-sexualized her public image.

If the consequences of her philosophy are unpalatable, she needs to find God and spend her social time in conservative religious venues where men, if they approach at all, normally do so for the purpose of marriage-oriented courtship rather than one night stands.

Otherwise, Rebecca, be an atheist and sin boldly…. and don’t complain when atheist men attempt to sin boldly with YOU!

All get what they want. They do not always like it. — Aslan, Lord of Narnia

A reply video to this video nails it in one: (paraphrasing) bitch, you’re uncomfortable, but that guy was more uncomfortable than you, and only barely worked up the nerve to ask what he asked. Chill the fuck out.

It’s the definition of irony that some women complain of the double standards as applied to men and women, yet have no problem applying a much worse double standard to men of different status; the advance of alpha is flattering and reflective of his worth, whereas the advance of the beta earns him the title of ‘potential rapist’.

I love this guy, John Norman Howard. He’s the racissss enforcer, I’m noticing. Can’t slip a PC shibboleth past him. Keep up the hilarious work. I am so using “shitskin” at some point in the next 48 hours.

My question about the video is this: why is the bespoke homeboy getting uppity about a woman trapped in a confined space instinctively playing the percentages? Homey don’t like it, then FIX YO INCARCERATION RATES. http://tinyurl.com/65gedjx There may be racism in the system, but is that supposed to sufficiently explain why black men are twenty-five times more likely than their white counterparts to be jailed in a liberal enclave like Connecticut?

What’s worse, a woman allowing herself to be intimidated by a false but statistically likely threat, or a whole class of self-loathing intellectual betas being allowing themselves to be intimidated by false cultural pieties into denying the truth registered with their own eyes?

However not so much in a business district office building during daytime when riding with a suited black dude. He’s got too much to lose, in all great likelihood to want to steal her cash and quickly cancelable credit cards.

She does have a photocopy page or two of all her credit cards, drivers license, membership cards and other such stuff she carries around in her purse, right? Guys too.

She really is applying a sexist double standard. Really, what is worse; to find a woman attractive and therefor desirable as a sex partner, which is really what viewing them as sex objects means, or to categorize all men as potential rapists.

What we are seeing on display here is actual hatred of men. Feminists really have drifted over the line into being a hate group.

But that is good in the long run; it is how groups marginalize themselves. Even the manginas will get tired of this schtick eventually. Each Progressive needs his moment where their fellow travelers do something so over the top that it causes a reevaluation of what’s what.

She likely opened the door to liberation and freedom for many Feminist boot licking manginas with this little act. So really, she needs to be applauded for helping the cause of Men’s Rights. Each lightbulb that switches on is one more man who is free.

It has really amazed me how quickly the men involved in this thing, on her “side”, who were so eager to sell themselves short. Like they were just a few thoughts away from volunteering for castration. Over this. Its disgusting.

I disagree. As others noted here, this is just normal female behavior of putting a beta in his place. It is hatred of unacceptable hopeful suitors, not all men.

It was not his behavior that was wrong, it was that her immediate reaction was disgust, not sexual interest. In our current cultural climate, she is encouraged to view his actions–which are only a problem when she does not find him attractive–into socially deviant behavior. She was not harmed or threatened in any way, not even slightly. She just didn’t want his attention, and the primal revulsion and loathing she felt at the concept of sex with him is encouraged by her sort as evidence of HIS pathology, not simply HER defense mechanism against mating with unacceptable males.

The ood part is she goes into such a full-throated condemnation mode, rather than simply bitching to her friends.

But even this is understandable if you consider how she is like a southern bigot in Jim Crow era Mississippi. Imagine her looking about the barber shop at the other rednecks, relating how some uppity boy didn’t get off the sidewalk *fast enough* for her subjective preference, and then watching to see how many of the rednecks mummer agreement with her. Such actions like hers are a status check/social consensus inquiry. The ire directed toward the perceived subordinate group is secondary to the issue of achieving, maintaining, and exercising control in the social hierarchy.

Had she found the man attractive, the exact same behavior would have been met with pleasure response in her brain, and then his same OBJECTIVE behavior would be welcomed. Any later blog posting by her would have been along the lines of “HAWT dude asked me to coffee! Yowza!”

This is not hatred of men, rather this is an attempt to confirm she really has the societal whip hand she thinks she has over males generally. She can then provide exemptions to ones she finds sexually desirable. In that way, she is every woman you will ever meet. I am not blaming her for that–women are women–but this really is nothing out of the ordinary.

I think you’re missing a political component that is not just about whip hand over betas.

I agree that women also band together to maintain the beta class of men. You’re missing the banding together part.

She’s not merely having a personal reaction that is bolstered by her being in a social group. She’s having a time honored group-reaction. She’s trying to keep men down. As an individual acting together with a group against an individual representative of a group.

I disagree. As others noted here, this is just normal female behavior of putting a beta in his place. It is hatred of unacceptable hopeful suitors, not all men.

The rejection of Elevator AFC and using it for another creepy guy tale with her friends is normal. Using it to turn herself into an Internet martyr and ending up calling for a boycott of a famous scientist’s books reveals a subtext of mysandry. Normal women reject multiple openers each day without making a major case out of it.

Good analysis. Feminism really is just an enormous shit test. They’re best treated with the same arrogant dismissal of their ideas and attitudes as they seek to project themselves. This is such tedious hipster drivel. But it leads to feminist jurisprudence and secret rape courts as in Sweden. Most men in Sweden already agree with the manginas who posted in her defense. All the while, their women are screwiing foreigner to get a taste of real man. Its the politicization of these instances that becomes dangerous and already is. Therefore, it spills over into hatred, because it is so arrogant in its efforts at power sustainment at the expense of their victims and seeks to do them real political and constitutional harm.

An interesting profile of Anna Ardin, the Swedish University professor who accused Julian Assange of rape.

A Swedish forum reports that she is an expert on sexual harassment and the male “master suppression techniques”. Once, as she was lecturing, a male student in the audience looked at his notes instead of staring at her. Anna Ardin reported him for sexual harassment because he discriminated against her for being a woman and because she claimed he made use of the male “master suppression technique” in trying to make her feel invisible. As soon as the student learned about her complaint, he contacted her to apologize and explain himself. Anna Ardin’s response was to once again report him for sexual harassment, again because he was using the “master suppression technique”, this time to belittle her feelings.

“Let’s do a ‘what if’? What if it were a black dude on the elevator and rather than ask Ms. Watson to come to his room he instead asks for the time. Now remember, all the same factors apply, the late hour, the elevator, everything is exactly the same but he asks for the time. By rights, this should also make her feel ‘uncomfortable’, shouldn’t it? Now, after this encounter, she then posts a video telling black men not to do that, because it’s ‘creepy’. What word would be used to describe her reaction? How many of these same people now defending her do so in this case? Now ask yourself, after she gets some criticism would PZ Myers write a blog about how black guys just don’t get it? That black men need to learn how to properly approach white people? Why wouldn’t he write this? A black man’s actions made a white woman feel ‘uncomfortable’. And they do want more women at these atheist gatherings after all! So surely black men need to shut up and listen to the white women, don’t they?”

We have an abundance of contradictory logic. Feminists are in every way our equal, but we must be mindful not to frighten them. He should act with gender blindness while also realizing that she is potentially a frightened little girl. What we can take from this is:

All men are potential rapists.
All women are potential frightened little girls.
We are all equal.

A beta male can easily make a woman feel uncomfortable, because his body language and structured verbalization contradict his words — betas come off as manipulative.

In a situation I was in recently (out with 3 guy peers), one of my peers went up to a 6.5 and talked to her. His body language was weak, he couldn’t get words out, and her body language was very vocal: go away, you’re creeping me out. He came back pretty discouraged. Later in the evening, I came across the same gal who opened me with “Hey, what’s up with your friends?” The words left unsaid would probably have been “they’re creeping me out by looking at us so much, but you haven’t glanced over once.”

My response to her was “not every girl knows a good man when she sees it” and proceeded to walk away. She dance-winged my arm and said “What do you mean by that?” to which I just smiled, changed subject and got her phone number in about 90 seconds — performing actions that almost every woman’s outer brain would label as creepy, but her inner hamster needs.

I’ve talked to a few gals in elevators, and it’s definitely a difficult maneuver because you can’t easily walk away instantly if her body language shifts to the negative. Still, it CAN be done, you just need to play it very stoically and solidly.

I have no doubt that this feminist bitch thought the guy was creepy, but it’s his own fault for not manning up and feed her inner brain’s needs: even feminists want a man, but come across so few of them.

Wait. Not me Maya. Every woman has their own definition of “creepy” when it comes to men. Actually I would have been more freaked out if he was in the elevator staring at me and not saying anything. THAT to me is creepy.

If I’m in an elevator staring at a woman & not saying anything, all I am doing is trying to figure out is if the potential prostitue is worth $25.00 or $30.00. After all, if she has a vagina, she’s as much a potential hooker as the nerd was a potential rapist.

Be forward. Ask her if she’d have sex for one million bucks. If she says yes, ask her if she’ have sex for $50. If she replies: “What kind of woman you think I am?”, say “That has been already established, now we haggle over the price”.

given your past, your not really fit to judge what is creepy and what isn’t as you’re inherently biased at a visceral level. PTSD is a dangerous basis for establishing social norms and even worse for laws that enforce them.

Feminists are getting the men they asked for. They spent many, many years telling men that they want “sensitive, empathic, caring guys”. Most men say what they want, so when young men hear that from women, they accept it at face value and act accordingly.

This type of man is exactly what women said they wanted. They got the men they asked for. To bad for them that it isn’t what they wanted.

Exactly. I have always thought of it as women want men to be a leader but not a boss. That means he has to understand them and cater to their needs up to a point, but also kick them in the ass when it was needed. It has worked well for me over the years. Feminism is nothing but a grand shit test, only the prize is almost always a whack job with an overactive ego. Just generally not worth it.

And they also really want a man who can and will put them in their place, hence the veracity of my comment. We’re observing the same coin from different sides here. Asian women are also just meaner than Western women when they get worked up. I avoid them for this very reason.

Some women do “want and like guys” like that. But, they don’t find them as attractive, and they certainly don’t want to go to bed with them. If they do, it’s not because of “TAKE ME NOW” attraction to the guy. It’s because they are getting revenge on some other guy, it’s a pity fuck, manipulation, etc. There are a myriad of different reasons for “why” they’ll fuck the sensitive guy, but it will almost never be because he’s attractive to her.

Like someone else said, they want Alpha first, sensitive second and ONLY TO THEM.

Most of us don’t have a binary “Sensitive Guy” or “Asshole” way of thinking. But we do notice that the guys that women will sleep with lean more towards Asshole than Sensitive.

Anon & Rick, I am not going to say you are wrong. BUT usually what happens is the girl may initially reject a nicer guy, take a walk on the wild side and then realize “that was stupid”.
Trust me I get utterly peeved when a friend (who knows better) does some dumb shit that continues to perpetuate this phenomenon. At a previous job, I had a very attractive Asian co worker who came from a very conservative solid foundation/family. She was interested in being matched up with a guy I knew well at another company so I hooked them up. Well turns out after first date, She didn’t like him b/c he was “too quiet”. Okay that’s fine (he’s not quiet at all but that was her way of saying she wasn’t interested). She obviously found him physically attractive b/c she intiated the interest. Anyway, she starts online dating. Complains to me about this hot guy she met online who she initially met briefly for coffee for the first encounter. Second encounter (3 days later) she says he “tricked” her into coming to his house for the official first date. I was like” are you insane? “

So she goes there and says he “tricked her” into sleeping with him. She said she kept telling him to stop (when he was trying to have sex with her) b/c he was being very rough with her (Neecy interjection: that’s fkn scarey) Nonetheless she ultimately and admittedly had sex with him (not forced). Ok she got “tricked” , he was an asshole and was very rough with her. so I give her the benefit of the doubt b/c shit happens unexpectedly some times. (I think.. ) soooo she would never see this guy again right? NOPE! This fool continued going over there time and time again! When I asked her WTH was wrong with her, she couldn’t give me a straight answer (I knew she liked the sex but she just couldn’t bring her conservative self to say it). Yet my nice friend who was really interested in her (he was attractive, decent, smart and generous) she didn’t want. She’d rather complain about a guy who is very sexually rough with her, and manipulative, never took her out to eat not even a happy meal at Micki dees (lol) wanted no serious relationship– and still kept going over there to be his booty call. This is an attractive, smart, girl who can pretty much get any guy she wants. And that is what she settled for? *sigh* ALAS! Luckily for her, she did end up meeting a quintessential nice guy who also was looking for a girl like her. She jokingly told me she would “eat his dirty underware” after what she went through. LOL and she clings to is arse like glue after seeing the reality of making stupid decisions – He’s happy b/c she is still young, hot and adores him. It’s a win-win. She told me online dude was her first and LAST jerk. SO even some women do come around after one bad experience of trying to take a walk on the wild side.
A lot of times that is what happens. Girls have to see for themselves and learn the hard way before they make the better decisions and start appreciating the nice guys. So not all is lost.
For every bad choice there are consequences. there are still decent attractive girls out there who have no desire to be treated like a sperm receptacle. These girls are usually harder to find b/c they get snatched up quickly by that nice guy when he finds her.

Meanwhile, me Neecy, I can’t get a nice guy to even look my way while all the bad boys (who I have no interest in whatsoever) seem to be the only interested ones. Some girls have all the luck…..
.

“Yet my nice friend who was really interested in her (he was attractive, decent, smart and generous) she didn’t want”

After being THAT GUY for 20 years, guess what?
The next one had better be able to “suck the chrome off of a trailer hitch”. IOW, she had better bring more to the table than “I’ve learned my lesson or I deserve this”. Because there are younger, prettier, & hornier women out there.

The problem with what you’ve said is that “taking a walk on the wild side” leaves baggage. It also, curiously, seems to take women from about 16 years old to around 27 years old to realize that “that was stupid”.

From a male point of view (especially a “nice guy” point of view), all they see are women that have their fun during their prime years, ignore the nice guys that they claim to want, then smarten up when their market value starts to decline. To a male, that looks suspiciously like they are the last resort.

Nobody likes being the leftovers. Nobody likes being the second choice. Yet, that’s what women tacitly tell men all the time. Brazenly. Then they wonder why there are no good men left. In that decade when the nice guys are being shunned, one of two things happens. Either they learn Game, stop being nice and Beta, then go after the younger women. Or they become very bitter, jaded, cynical and angry, then decisively reject women entirely believing that they are simply not worth the hassle.

I make no apologies if that sounds cynical. I’ve been that nice guy for ten years. I’ve been treated like a girlfriend by multiple women. I’ve since learned Game and now have a better life. But, I don’t want the women that claim to have learned their lesson because they will still have baggage that I’ll inevitably have to deal with.

Sex is not casual to women. It does not matter what women want to say about it, it always has consequences. Women that figure this out early, or that are taught by their parents not to engage in it casually, are far better quality for relationships than the ones that have to make mistakes, then “learn” ten years later. I have little patience or sympathy for women who do what your friend did because they should have known better.

Neecy, according to this blog, what your friend did was completely expected. Her whining about how much of an asshole he is? Expected and even explicitly stated. She once said something about the louder a bitch whines to her girlfriends about her guy, the more she likes him. Her saying he “tricked” her? Expected as well. Even stated in multiple posts! “It just happened!” Plausible deniability. How old is she? Mid 20’s? Early 30’s? If she hasn’t hit 30 yet, then it won’t be her last. Women who go for mega-assholes might need a break, but they jump back onto the cock carousel soon enough. Odds are that she was still having flings with the asshole behind the other guy’s back.

The entire atheist community went straight up freakin’ retarded with this garbage. In one corner is a bitchy, street juggler who has an online blog. On the other side is one of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. She calls for a boycott of his books because she is a skeeze who can’t take criticism, and the feminists step in line to follow her. Perhaps the most interesting thing we saw on our site: http://atheistconnect.org was a comment by one of our regulars: Rimjob Bob or Ol’ Rimmy. He points out, correctly in our opinion, that her version of feminism is not about equality. It’s about control. Right on, Rimmy. Right on. Check out the article, “Is Richard Dawkins a Sexist.”

I’ve been expecting The Great Atheist Crackup for awhile now (at least a year and a half), because I have correctly observed that many “atheists” are basically cultural Marxists: feminists, politically correct “progressives”, etc. That is the hidden creed beyond the patina of “freethinking” atheism.

So now it’s come to a head. Good, you all should have it out. If you eject the Gramscian scum, you may find allies in the most surprising places…

Atheism does not “assert” that God does not exist. It merely rejects the prior theist assertion of Its existence as arbitrary for lack of evidence. There literally is nothing for an atheist to prove or disprove.

The onus of evidence is with the theists, and they haven’t satisfied this single, most basic requirement of rational cognition for millenia… and yet they pillory us for “acting on faith”! That’s like Heidi Fleisch calling out married women as “whores” for having sex with their husbands.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism is about not believing any God or gods exist. It is the opposite of theism, which is the belief that at least one god exists. A person who rejects belief in gods is called an atheist.

Here’s the comment he’s referencing. I left it in the Skepchick meme post:

07/07/2011 at 5:29 PM

It always surprises me that the women who are least likely to be approached by a man always seem to make the most noise about how “inappropriate” it is. Why is the correlation between feminism and attractiveness inversely proportional?

If this guy that approached her was some movie star stud, she would have let him do any number of things to her and never said a word about it. But instead, he was “creepy” so she thought it was okay to call him out on his behavior in the name of feminism.

Bullshit. If this was someone she was attracted to this would be a non-issue. He would have fucked her and left, and she would have loved it. Instead she uses it as a chance to advance the fem-cunt cause.

Make no mistake about it, feminism, at least the version of it manifested by Skepchick, isn’t about equality, it’s about control. They want to be able to determine a man’s behavior. They want to decide how men and women navigate the sexual marketplace. They want only the guys they are attracted to to approach them when they want to be approached.

Sorry. Men are men. Whether they are creepy or not. If you have dreams of some dashing alpha male sweeping you off your feet after you meet at the Starbucks, you better be willing to swim the sea of lesser men attempting the same thing.

The sexual market place is not egalitarian. Men and women are sexually different, and those differences equate to different behaviors that may or may not be fair. Deal with it. Or find your self cold and alone forever surrounded by the cats you collected as you spurned the advances of men.

What also cracks me up, is that these actions have now severely crippled her overall attractiveness to other men. When she finally does want the feel of a man, she’ll find nary one around, as no man worth anything would waste time on someone like this.

“In contrast, a man who directly approaches a woman in a context that affords her no quick, polite escape is, in the woman’s mind and likely in reality as well, a desperate beta who needs to corner a woman to win an audience with her. She will easily and seamlessly rationalize this awkward behavior on his part as the machinations of a rapist’s mind.”

Why this would be rationalization? It’s not. A man who corners a woman like that could really be a rapist! Her feeling uncomfortable was protective. A woman who wouldn’t feel uncomfortable and wouldn’t have a desire to escape could potentially really be raped. We have protective mechanisms in our brain to avoid being raped by losers! How can you call it rationalization?! Rationalization is an action of cerebral cortex, I guess, but her FEELING worried/uncomfortable is not.

I just didn’t understand why they called it “rationalization” in this post, because it is not. That’s what I was complaining about.

I agree with you, Neil, that a (chronic?) fear of being raped is probably a part of woman’s life. We just want to minimize it as much us possible. When we’ll have all of you men in cages, using you only to work for us and to obtain the semen for reproduction, we’ll finally feel safe.

It’s precisely this kind of reductio ad absurdum that will invite unnecessary wrath down on the gathering truth whispered in these precincts. Overenthusiastic claims like “It is not possible to be raped by a true alpha” will turn game from an effective psychological weapon in the war of the sexes into an inarguable reason to snuff out the incipient reconquista of manly prerogative.

If alphas by definition cannot rape, feminism ceases to be the simple paranoia it generally is. Alphas are naturally respected by men and women alike, and as such, they command certain privileges that others do not. Not among those privileges is the manipulation of the laws of civilization on a whim. “Alphas can’t rape” is the diametrical opposite of “all men are rapists,” equally preposterous but on the other side of the spectrum.

Ease down, sparky. Women can say no and mean it, even if Mr. Alpha makes it really really hard.

Liberate a man enslaved by a century of feminist lies, and the newly liberated just wants to smash shit up in revenge, calling everything a lie. They should rename this blog Pandora’s box.

What happened, happened. She had her reasons, but I doubt very seriously that anything she felt during the horrible event are what we would call reasoned arguments. They were most likely vague, protoplasmic. Feelings.

Now that the horrible event has occurred, she is struggling to put words to those feelings. This is where the rationalization comes into play. She has revisited the event any number of times. Her initial hypothesis was that “he was in the wrong”, and she is now using rationalization to justify that point of view. It is the struggle to maintain the “potential rapist” frame, and any number of other frames that protect her.

We always put some words to our feelings otherwise we can’t report what we feel. This is not rationalization.

When you see a cute girl and you feel something vague and protoplasmic and then think about how cute she is and how cool would it be to have sex with her, is this rationalization? No. Girl in elevator felt uncomfortable and she correctly recognized why – because this guy could be a potential rapist.

No. A woman HAS to feel that every man (with a low SMV) is a potential rapist in order to avoid rape. It’s visceral and INNATE. Like the fear of drowning, snakes, … You don’t need cerebral cortex to feel that and this is not rationalization.

I’ve had queers hit on me in places where I wold have felt uncomfortable if I were a woman, but it just didn’t bother me that much, certainly not enough to try and make a point of it. Your whole generation of women has been deliberately cultivated to fear and loathe all men as potential rapists. It has been a deliberate campaign by feminists to demonize men and extravct wealth and social privileges from them and codify these privileges. Now she is seeking to lay the socio/cultural foundation for the case that such a proposition is grounds for criminal proceedings. Its an extension of the feminist efforts to criminalize and pathologize normal male behavior. This sort of thing is already law in Scandinavia and VAWA is suitably vague and broad to make such conversations criminal in the US as well. All it takes is enough encouragement of the likes of this woman and the hipster bandwagon will roll until its law.

Look, what I wanted to say is that this woman in the elevator FELT (instinctively, so this is not rationalization) the creepy guy COULD be a rapist.
(He actually might be, how could she know?!), she didn’t say that he IS a rapist. That’s how brain works. We feel uncomfortable around all the potentially dangerous people.

A few years ago a very creepy guy I just met invited me to go in his car with him, alone. I said I’m not going because I had a bad feeling about him. Would you recommend me to ‘stop rationalizing that every second guy is a rapist’ and go with him?

I remember one other occasion, I was about 17 y.o., when I was alone at night looking for some place I wanted to go to. I asked a man I saw whether he knows where it is and he said he knows and that he can show me where it is. At that moment he grabbed my both arms and tried to pull me on the side and I started “rationalizing” that he might be a rapist. I fell on the ground, but managed to escape and run away quickly.

Look, I also think this chick is a little crazy, because the guy didn’t make any move, he was just talking to her. What I wanted to say is that I believe she did feel uncomfortable and that this feeling certainly is not rationalization.

I used to be a feminist and walked around in tiny clothes (even though I don’t really know why, because I didn’t want to attract men at all – I seriously didn’t know how visual men are! I was wearing such clothes because everyone else did) in the middle of the night, sometimes alone. I used to think: rapists are men who hate women and want to do them harm because of the hate and jealousy that women are now emancipated, rapists are men who want to control women, etc … And because I never met a man in my life saying anything against women, I assumed that there are no men who “hate” and want to “control” women.

Even after those two experiences (they were both in a country where men behave more passionately) I kept thinking like that … I just rationalized my experience that I just had bad luck with meeting criminals. In the next few months staying in this country I had more such experiences and one was really really bad. I tried to forget it and I managed to not to think too much about it, but after one year I started to notice that I can’t forget it, that I think about it all the time and I feel nauseated and terribly bad. I started to think about my whole life and my childhood experience and why I’m avoiding guys when they try to get to know me …

I realized that there’s another, evolutionary explanation, and this helped me so much. It’s so much easier for me to interact with men now and I have no problems at all. I know it’s hard to believe that I have no huge consequences after what happened to me, but I really don’t have. I’m perfectly normal. Except that I needed so much time to realize it – thanks to feminist explanations of male behaviour.

I remember that once I was reading the wikipedia page about rape. Under Causes of rape it says: anger, desire of power, etc. And at the end – evolutionary pressures. I remember I was really angry to read this, because it didn’t fit into my feminist mindset. But now I believe just this and my life is so much better.

“The larger problem is that she CAN make herself a 15 minute (though she hopes with a good deal of reason, with good follow on, a lot longer than that) over this.”

You mean me? I think I’ve explained somewhere else why I didn’t tell that to anyone. In my case it wasn’t just a creepy guy hitting on me (this happens everyday to many many women over the world), but it was an actual abuse, which is dirty (how do you feel if you picture your girlfriend being abused or just having sex with some other guy of unknown quality?) and therefore not sexy. I don’t want to lower my SMV by explaining people about what happened to me (I didn’t even tell my gynecologist although I could have possibly contracted an STD – reason is I just wasn’t ready psychologically to deal with it until last month), especially not now, being in the late summer already, as I don’t have any time to lose. Besides, I don’t think feminist psychologists (=all of them) could help me, because their theories is what actually made me feel worse!

I think it’s kinda strange that I had so many bad experience with creepy men, but only now I can see that it was actually my own fault. I’m very tiny-boned, I’m skinny and look weak, I have an ‘afraid’ facial expression (I just happen to have eyes like that), this combined with walking around half-naked (I seriously had NO idea that this has any effect on men! How could I know? Nobody ever told me, and other girls wear clothes like that, too), possibly alone and at night, combined with my complete inability to be impolite to any strange man that approaches me – it’s no wonder that I had the experience I had!

If I go now to a psychologist and say that IT IS MY FAULT THAT I WAS ABUSED (I’m not talking about my childhood abuse now, it really wasn’t my fault) they will think I’m crazy and start to convince me that I’m a VICTIM and that I can keep walking around half-naked and be polite to all the strange guys hitting on me!

Be that as it may, lower ‘beta’/omega atheists seem to be drawn to skeptic circles, for the male carmaderie, meaning it lends to life and social group acceptance. Dawkins has shown himself to be an anomaly in his impatience with feminism, and Watson’s popular existence in skeptic gatherings show the depth of the infection of liberalism in skepticism. Being familiar with skeptic circles, they’re deeply infected with PC.

To pretend skepticism isn’t currently a unifying ideology and community of atheists is pretty much epic fail. The point is they’re not being true to the rationality that their atheism and skepticism allegedly stems from, because they’re betraying it.

Not all atheists are skeptics.
Professional skeptics tend to be atheists, advocates of data and rationality.
Part of the course extreme pro-feminism is data-corrupting and irrational.
QED.

She’s right. You’ll also notice most of the professional atheists bash white christians and not muslim immigrants (and the politicians who opened the gates) despite the latter being way more retarded and dangerous than the former. They’re afraid to have un-politically correct opinions just like your average anal urban leftist.

“A man who directly approaches a woman in a context that offers her an unmessy exit is, in the woman’s hindbrain, a confident man unafraid of potential rejection. ”

I like this. Never thought about it this way, but its true..

Regarding the lady. I’m not sure what was said verbatim, but I’m going by what you posted here. if this was some poor little nerd trying to get a date, I feel bad for him. lol Its not that serious to get all worked up b/c some nerdy guy didn’t know exactly how to approach a woman he found attractive.. Some women are truly offended by any guy trying to do what most men will do naturally – ask a woman out. They feel its disrespectful and see it as him moving into her personal space. The way I see it if we women don’t want to have to be the ones approaching males, then we should understand and accept its male nature to at least TRY. The day men are no longer interested in even trying to give us a compliment or show an interest is going to be a sad day (at least for me) b/c I expect men to make the first move. Some women even get more mean when the guy is not one they are attracted to – they get offended and angry lol. Unless he is being a disrespectful jerk or really acting in a suspicious way,, there is no need to be rude or make him feel stupid. I just can’t get with that.

I’ve even had decrepit bums try to “holla” and as annoying as that is I can’t bring myself to being mean or angry.

When women respond like she did, it makes it that much harder for men to feel comfy in at least showing even the slightest interest in a woman. That won’t be a fun day if this ever happens.

I didn’t really change my position on my post, just the situation. I still stand by everything I said minus the elevator situation.

I don’t think women want to see the day when we are left up to trying to get the men we want. It frightens me to think I would ever have to approach a man I like. So I understand what it must be like for men to do the same. IMO the average guy isn’t going to be Rico Suave and may not always say the right things. As long as he is being respectful what’s the prob? Sure some days a woman is just not having a good day and doesn’t want to be bothered and usually a man can tell by her demeanor. Its not going to ever be a good thing if men no longer feel comfortable to even make small talk or slightly compliment a woman. So my take on it is, be compassionate to all (ugly and not ugly, beta, omega, alpha) unless they are being jerks, rude, disrespectful.
If I am not attracted to a guy and he approaches me, I will still be nice and make a little small talk but when he goes in for the kill I just simply say ”I’m dating someone”. Been using that one line for years and it works. What more can a guy say after that? Simple, easy and no feelings are hurt.

Men having difficulty with game often complain about women not approaching men… Believe me, it’s not what you want. I’ve been approached four times during my lifetime in a public area. I’m not a hot athlete, i may be a 7 on the looks scale, but i was well dressed everytime when it happened.
I was approached by 5s and 6s (they initiated casual conversations), they were still bangable and i never miss an opportunity, but the whole thing felt awkward. I prefer to be the hunter, it’s the natural position for a man. Besides, i prefer HB8+ and those bitches usually don’t notice me before i start talking.

Women are crazy when their words don’t mean what words are supposed to mean.

They don’t perceive reality in a way that is consensual. Unless you count hallucinogenic co-conspirators.

And here we get closer to the truth. Co-conspirators. What are the femmes conspiring for? What is their motivation? If their words and reality are askew, what is the driving force? What’s in it for them?

Women who are “almost-raped” get:
1) personal attention.
2) victim-hood, and therefore potential allies
3) to further their political agenda of vilifying men.

Number three is the hardest to parse. Why are women as a group raising public awareness of pedophilia to levels of absurd and abusive paranoia? Keeping all males away from unsupervised children, just in case. Why are they quick to jump on board the cause of the weakest argument for rape or domestic violence, and ignore and never punish the false claims? Women, as a class, want males to be powerless, weak, and fearful of female political power. The power of the woman to call the police, to go nuts and take all your shit, to get you locked out of your house, to cry rape to a stranger, to cry pedophilia to a neighbor.

Women hunger, hunger, hunger for political power. To be the neighborhood communist bigwig spying on all to make sure all the rules are followed, or else.

This is not about rape. It’s just about “don’t you dare cross me, even in the slightest. Don’t you know who I am? Don’t you know who I represent? I’m a woman! I’m a Matron, and I have a million angry rolling pins at my beck and call! And the police and the judiciary too!”.

Won’t lie, I did laugh and at the need to not want to come off as to upright, I just left it at that.

BUT, I just think if its going to bother you – stay consistent and true to it despite whether the guy is hot or you like him or not. IMO if you as a woman don’t like being disrespected, it shouldn’t matter who its coming from (an unnattractive guy or a an attractive guy).

These inconsistencies can and usually cause problems later down the line for both the male and female.

Amen. And they seek power for the sake of exercising it and indulging their egos. This is why men have traditionally checked women’s desire for power. They are too selfish in exercising it. “Those who most desire power deserve it least.”- Plato

Precisely. Which is exactly why men need to control that tendency to abuse their power in women. Its why they didn’t get the vote for most of history. Thomas Ellis hit it on the head when he said women in general were incapable of empathisizing with men’s situations and perspective in life and when in power, tended to neglect them. Men naturally think of the greter good, but women think of themselves and don’t really consider men in their except as resources and security at a primal level. Our distance from nature culturally has likely destroyed this obvious lesson to a culture that is closer to nature.

I wonder who was the first person to come up with this insane duality.

It’s as bad as “objectified”.

As if people are NOT sexual objects. We are disembodied personalities. Wait – that wouldn’t do either – as that would have something that would still need to compete on the sexual marketplace. We are pure beings of light and spirit. Ya – that’s it.

You sexualized me! You objectified me! You NOTICED that I am not a pure being of light and spirit! But I use Dove!

Web forums are raising the standards for discourse. When you get called on your shit in a conversation, you can just go round and round in circle jerk circles with silly dissimulation games.

Remember “arguing” with someone who would forever retort with “but that’s not what you said. You said this!” You don’t get that in written communications. Plus someone is always willing to call bullshit. We even have names for various flavors of bullshit. Dissimulation ain’t so easy anymore.

Soon after she called Dawkins white, rich, smart, it was noted that so is she. When your dissimulation comes so obviously out of your ass, it’s hard not to notice the stink.

I know a 20 years old cock muncher who slept with 8 guys before her 18th birthday. Out of the 8 guys she slept with, she claimed that 4 of them “raped” her. Last time I heard of her, she got exposed for fucking a dog. 100 true story, I kinda feel disgust just from vaguely associating with her.

I don’t understand the scorn for elevator guy. I don’t think he did anything wrong. He saw a girl he liked and asked her out. Elevator rides are really short (2 minutes max), and he made his pitch and tried to close. Almost alpha really… Most guys are too chicken to do this much. Behavior that will if repeated eventually raise this guy from a lower beta to an upper beta. This guy could have been a alpha and her reaction woulnt have been much different.

If anything, he is 100% wrong about why it it is a bad idea or not alpha to close in elevators. The problem is that you can’t walk and the girl knows it, not that the girl has to wait about a minute before she walks.

See the staring is what creeps me out. I’m more freaked out by the staring than the outright advances. Now don’t get me wrong an overly aggressive guy being a rude sexist jerk making advances to me is not OKAY and its borders on psychotic entitled behavior . But a regular guy just awkwardly saying the wrong thing, but well intentioned is not something I get worked up over.

Every woman is different though and i don’t knock another woman’s fears. but not all women see the awkward nerdy guy who is inexperienced at approaching women as “creepy”. Maybe funny, maybe annoying, maybe endearing, maybe sad. I don’t know. i just feel bad for the poor guy /c I don’t think he really meant any harm lol

If this guy had looked like Brad Pitt and he did the same thing, I highly doubt the word “creepy” would be used.

Yes staring is very impolite. The only people who should get away with staring are babies and children. And even then it can be quite uncomfortable. Anyone above the age of 12 doing it = CREEPY. LOL

Every woman is different though and i don’t knock another woman’s fears. but not all women see the awkward nerdy guy who is inexperienced at approaching women as “creepy”. Maybe funny, maybe annoying, maybe endearing, maybe sad. I don’t know. i just feel bad for the poor guy /c I don’t think he really meant any harm lol

If this guy had looked like Brad Pitt and he did the same thing, I highly doubt the word “creepy” would be used.

The denigration of male sexuality is a Victorian thing; in this mindset the male has value *only* as a beta provider. When men lost their value as beta providers, they lost all value. The Victorian/feminist woman can’t respond in an appropriate manner to men who are socially appropriate for her. She can still respond biologically, which leads to single motherhood of mixed-race babies.

The problem this woman has is that she’s not fat but is still not attractive, and so doesn’t have any good experience with men. She is awkward and resentful. If you are going to approach a plain woman you should keep this in mind.

Fascinating, Thras. My own thinking on the subject has come to a pretty similar conclusion as yours. Unofficially (or informally if you prefer) certain groups of men fall out of society’s norms and expectations (e.g. foreign races). When relations between men and women within society become strained or otherwise stultified a vacuum is created that is quickly filled by “second string” men on the periphery of polite society. This is true in other areas of life besides sexual relations.

On the one hand she’s clearly made a mountain out of a itsy bitsy molehill, as have her army of mangina and feminist supporters, lead by the uber PC biologist and atheist PZ Myers. She’s even gone on a campaign to boycott atheist luminary Richard Dawkins’ books, after he made light of her “trauma”. Absurd.

As well it’s transparent attention whoring on her part. Men are trying to pick me up left and right.

On the other hand the clueless nerd did violate some sort of social code to an extent. People don’t generally talk to other people on elevators. Usually at most there’s an acknowledgement to someone you know but have first seen that day there, such as a “hey”. An elevator is one of the worst places there is to try to pick up a girl, due to her feeling trapped, as Heartiste says. Asking a girl to come to your room for coffee and to talk or anything else as the first thing you say to her on an elevator is socially unaware to the nth degree.

It is not however remotely rape threatening. It’s just the girl being put awkwardly on the spot.

If you’re gonna do elevator pickup you should be very light about it, creating comfort in the awkward situation. Shows social awareness. Only try to escalate for her number etc. when off the elevator or upon seeing her subsequently elsewhere.

It’s a case in other words of nerdy bad manners and zero game. Nothing more.

I don’t know why you recently turned on comment nesting. I wish you’d turn it off.

Your blog gets too many comments for that to work well. Comment nesting makes it much harder to come back and look for new comments. One can’t simply go the near end of the comment thread – they could be nested way above.

Sometimes CH get so caught up in the “women are annoying” bit it’s hard to take anything seriously, but every now and then he finds a gem like this chick who actually lives up to it and points are the mania of the way she things. Good post.

Oh, and crazy chick who rejected the nerd on the elevator but would’ve swooned if a confident Zach Braff type had done it, let’s hope this all puts more of our misogyny on display.

The type of girl who goes in for such public complaining is a power hungry matron. This is a person who wants public social power.

Villlifying men is one avenue for power over others. On the one hand you get power over men, and on the other you gain a clique of girls within which you can vie for power – and within which you’ve just gained man hating points.

The neg opener is, in my experience, among the strongest closed-environment opening techniques. The sooner you can bring the girl into a self-assessment frame, the quicker and smoother the pick-up attempt will proceed. The 4AM elevator scenario certainly complicates the situation: not only is the girl going to be exhausted, but also unkempt/unattractive, potential amplifying the negative emotional response to the neg. I suspect, however, that asshole game would work like butter on a feminist chick like this one.

I would, then, go through with a softer neg opener to establish two things: (1) alpha status, and (2) self-assessment frame. Immediately thereafter, bring in the aloofness–as she becomes defensive and qualifies herself to you, act bored and distracted. This will not only spark her attraction, but also raise her energy level, something necessary for a 4AM pickup. While maintaining the frame of her qualifying to me, I would simply ask her to meet me tomorrow, possibly ending with something like this: ‘i know you want that badly, but 4AM is pushing your luck.’ For an elevator pickup, make it quick and effective–neg, be aloof, and keep her in a qualifying frame. She will have trouble going to sleep as she waits to meet you again.

[Editor: Well said. Could you give the readers an example of a soft neg opener you might use in an elevator on a chick?]

Th reason the neg opener is my go-to move is because its quick, effective, and so goddamn fun. It gives the guy the opportunity to pick something out and critique the girl, putting his mind automatically into a higher status frame of thinking. I generally prefer to choose some physical characteristic to critique, and it varies based on the individual girl. Super-hotties require harder negs (e.g. Tom Brady and Gisele Bundcnen), while 6-7s would require something softer.

So, onto the example situation. If I were in an elevator at 4AM with the feminist chick in the article, I would probably choose from something of the following (in no specific order):

(1) “I saw those glasses at Kmart last week. Good sale, huh?”

(2) “You wearin [insert whatever brand] perfume? I told my girlfriend to get it, but she said it was outdated.” (added advantage: preselection by mentioning ‘girlfriend’)

(3) “You know, if you got rid of those hair extensions you could be hot.” (classic hair neg; doesn’t matter if she actually has hair extensions or not, works like a charm).

The key is having fun with it; choose something specific and proceed with the neg. There isn’t a specific kind of neg that will work or won’t work; they will all be effective for the most part—the variation exists in calibrating the strength of the neg (which is usually based on the attractiveness of the girl). The purpose of the neg is to engender a particular emotional response in the target; a neg that is too strong will make her emotionally low (which goes against the goal of attraction), and one that is too soft fails to establish your higher status. Those lines work in producing the appropriate emotional response. Again they must be calibrated based on the situation, but they work.

In reference to success, they establish the beginning of the pickup. They immediately set your higher status and put her in a qualifying frame. The rest of the pickup is up to you and, of course, more complicated that just the opener.

I don’t know, killer. Even a compulsive salesman isn’t going to try to sell snow to eskimos. In the elvator you’ve got between lobby and floor 6. Or 16. If she’s not given eye contact and doesn’t appear flirty, even if she does have a tight ass and you are about to kick yourself for cowardly silence – what else can you do?

I’d like to hear of success stories from within elevators. Where the girl wasn’t the initiator through body language.

Silence is effective game only if the following conditions are met:
(1) this is girl you would really really like to bed, or have a relationship with (i.e. you are, for the most part, unwilling to risk rejection)

(2) the current situation’environment has a relatively low chance of producing pickup success (e.g. 4AM in elevator)

(3) you will likely see this girl again, in a situation that will lend itself better to running game

By and large in elevator situations, you will not see this girl again. Once the elevator ride is over, she will go on with her life, and you with yours. You have only that opportunity. If she rejects you, who cares? At least you tried. Next time you will read the girl better, try something new. In any case, you will improve even if you fail.

If I walk into a bar/cafee/store and make eye contact with a gal, I assume she’s been looking longer. 3-5 seconds to walk up to her.

Elevators are like walking up to a gal from behind her. Instead, since we are both just noticing each other, I have 1-3 seconds to get that smile. Giving her a tight unassuming smile and asking if she’s just arrived or is leaving tomorrow works. Her response, body language and eye contact give you the next move.

She’s already on the defensive, a neg would kill it. Instead, be light and funny and (god forbid) even cute at 4am in an elevator, and get her to smile and start asking questions.

The problem I see with being ‘light and funny’ in the elevator scenario is that two-fold. Firstly, the possibility that she would just get annoyed or exasperated, especially if she lacks any immediate physical attraction towards you. And secondly, that the severe time constraint would make the jump from ‘light and funny’ to insta-date or number-close a part of ‘creepy guy’ territory (this is exactly the problem the feminist chick had with the coffee-beta guy). The neg opener in the elevator is risky and a bit trickier to pull off, but given the situation—-high time constraint, and only one opportunity to talk to this girl—-it’s the best solution. It requires you to have keen body language: relaxed, comfortable, aloof. And your voice tone will need to have a humorous edge to it (this is difficult to describe here, but guys who have been involved with game for a bit know what I’m talking about). The neg will be a hit or miss. But the important thing is that it does hold the possibility of creating that immediate attraction. Due to the time constraint in the elevator scenario, comfort building will need to be sidelined.

Not playing is automatic failure. If you have other tactics/game strategies for this 4AM elevator situation that are effective, fine. But defeatism is the worst possible mindset. Losing and rejection are acceptable, they’re opportunities to learn and improve. Accepting defeat before any attempt is made is not only doomed, but pathetic.

With this chick? A neg wouldn’t work unless you call into question her belief system – which you won’t know unless you sat in on whatever sesssion it was that she had just attended.

Why use a neg as an opener in an elevator scenario? It’s a short-ride environment. It would be better if you could say something that would get her to leave the elevator car at whatever floor you get off at in an effort to continue the conversation. She’ll only want to do that if she likes what she sees. No amount of negging or trying to establish rappor will work in such an environment unless you’re what she wants. This is why you have to know here a little bit better than having just seen her for the first time in an elevator.

If you’ve seen her before, you can neg some aspect of her appearance.

YOU: “Wow, you’re always put together. What happened this morning?”
HER: “What do you mean?” (said nervously as she runs a hand through her hair and smooths down her skirt in an effort to fix whatever problem(s) you noticed).

[Continue on with some specifics, etc… but you had better be right]

If you’re really going after a woman for the first time, you could try this line:

YOU: “You should smile more. You’d be prettier.” [said with a smile and a quick wink]

Actually, he has to say only the “Its been a long day huh?” part. Your hamster will readily supply the “you look really tired” part.
If he has a lower register baryton (not too low) that resonates well, is half decent looking, and smells “right”, you’ll won’t know what hit you.

I’ve got a friend that specializes on elevator pickups. It’s his hunting territory, no one in their “right” mind would do it, so he has all the ground for himself.

I went one day with him just to observe.

He scours downtown office buildings. His time is about 3pm–he says that he figured out that time as the best, the chicks seem to be off guard. He gets to a lobby and watches the traffic. If he sees his desired target going alone, he enters shortly after her and waits for her to push the floor button. if the differential is at least 5 floors, he goes for it. The moment she reaches for the button, he does the same with a slight delay going for the same floor, and touches slightly her hand by his wrist and pulls back before hitting the button. It looks entirely accidental. Then he says something like “Same floor”, just as a mater of a statement without any connotation. He already knows what offices are on the destination floor He does his research beforehand. What he says next depends on a lot of factors. He observes the target chick before her elevator entry, clothing, mood, energy level, etc. to prepare his tactic. He is a good character (character in the sense of a play) reader, so he already has his mark neatly categorized for a specific approach. Of course, he’s a NLP-er and knows how to use it for his advantage.

He says his success rate is about one of seven. By the time they get off, the one of seven chick scribbles her phone number on a blank card he has ready for her. He wouldn’t go to a bar to pickup chicks if you paid him.

“Actually, he has to say only the “Its been a long day huh?” part. Your hamster will readily supply the “you look really tired” part.
If he has a lower register baryton (not too low) that resonates well, is half decent looking, and smells “right”, you’ll won’t know what hit you.”

Yes makes sense. And every time I see the word “hamster” I have to keep reminding myself “they are not talking about vaginas Neecy – BRAIN WAVES and FUNCTIONS” LOL! I was speaking with jerry over in the Alpha Assessment blog and he also explained to me that car pick ups are also difficult. I had a young attractive guy (really young possibly in his mid 20’s) about 2 weeks ago, attempt to pick me up while driving. He kept driving on the side of me and when we got to a stop light he motioned me to roll down my window (I thought he was attractive so I was game). Well he starts chatting making small talk, but quickly cuts to the chase. Unfortunately, “I’m not that type of girl” so his proposition was quickly met with a shocked face, laugh of disbelief and the sound of burning rubber across the intersection once the light turned green. But take out the vulgar part, he was pretty bold to try and pick up a girl within oh 60 seconds of a traffic light and close the deal. Then again maybe he thought I was easy? he definitely has done that before with some success. It was pretty ballsy if you ask me. He almost had my number to, but ruined it. Such a shame.

uhm ok. Regarding your bud. The only scary thing about what your friend does is he actually plans this by scoping out women purposely. LOL That borders (to me) on stalking. I however, don’t find it bad if its unplanned and a guy just happens to be in an elevator and does his pick up line whatever it is.

Neecy, I don’t believe your personal accounts of men failing at trying to pick you up add much to this conversation. We’re trying to dissect the delicate situation of an elevator pick up with logic, reason, and a clear understanding of the female mind. If you wish to add to our discussion, please refrain from personal tales meant to elevate your sexual value. I’m sure your attractive and that men desire you greatly, but this blog and its readership are not the proper place for masturbatory posts such as yours.

We’re trying to dissect the delicate situation of an elevator pick up with logic, reason, and a clear understanding of the female mind. If you wish to add to our discussion, please refrain from personal tales meant to elevate your sexual value

Roughly zero out of 100 girls would be able to do that. Which is why generally I’m irritated by women’s participation here. It’s like the special olympians trying to join in with the olympians.

CAD,
Hmmm point taken. I’m sure you wouldn’t have any crazies as friends anyway😉 At the end of the day whatever he’s doing is working for him and the women don’t know so its cool.

KILLER,

Just b/c you were actually decent in your approach I will try reeeeeeeallly reeeeeeaaallly REEEEEEEAAAALLY hard to not to bore you gentlemen with my stories. *Bad hamster, bad bad hamster!!!* What happens is my hamster starts squealing and jumping around when there is an opportunity to relate a personal story to a particular person I am interacting within a thread. BUT I will fight my hamster when I get the urge to start telling Neecy stories. But promise me one thing – you won’t hold it against me if my hamster wins and takes over?

XSPLAT
“Roughly zero out of 100 girls would be able to do that.”

PHEW! So its not just me then? That’s good to know, now I feel a little better….

All I ask is that you attempt to add value to these discussions. Being intentionally antagonistic, mocking or sarcastic will only serve to piss readers off, and their rude comments will then be justified. I understand that as a woman the contents of this blog and the discussions that take place here in the comments section may appear outlandish or even hilarious at first, but realize that what we explore here is everything that lies beneath the superficial niceties of culture. We examine the root of it all, the true reality. I don’t mind your presence here since I believe that you can add to these conversations.

Keep this in mind, and remember to think of these topics as clearly as possible. The more emotions you bring into it, the less likely you are to comprehend the underlying reality.

This girls ugly too, what an entitled bitch. The betas need to stop giving girls like her attention.
The guy got what he deserved, this is the same kind of guy who would claim CH is misogynist. I have no pity for beta orbiters who cause this inflated sort of egos from ugly women.

An excellent description of the problem. Women alone are at a natural disadvantage to a man. We dominate individually. Women are social creatures and firm elements of the society. Worthy men pass in and out of these. Its like a man hunting lion who cannot get his natural prey. He is a weak and slow creature relying on ambush. Any setting of this kind implies a high probability of female anxiety, but with toiletry consuming gender equalists soothing the inflammation of their shorn manhoods, they have no understanding.

(Damn threading only alows 5 or so relies & cuts off furth replies)
From above: “BUT I will fight my hamster when I get the urge to start telling Neecy stories. But promise me one thing – you won’t hold it against me if my hamster wins and takes over?”

Don’t. The insight into how the woman’s mind justifies everything bit of minutiae worth it. Those that don’t like it can skip it.

There is more going on here than just “how dare the wrong class of people hit on me”.

More than “how dare the wrong class notice that to the right class I’m a sexual object”.

No – this is political slander with the intention punish not just an individual – but men. I say political because just for disagreeing with her she wants to take a political action – boycotting a famous athr.

This is not merely about suppressed sexuality, nor merely about being cranky at a pick up gone wrong.

The elevator was just a convenient cause of uproar. The uproar was there before she stepped in.

She wants any opportunity to brandish her rolling pin. She WANTS outrage. She’s itching for a fight, because there is something real she can win.

Real money. Real frightened men who are easier to steal from. Real opportunities in business and school given preferentially to women. She’s a mafiosa in a mob of females, terrorizing.

It is just some habit of a personality disorder? A pathlogy with no purpose? Is the satisfaction psychological? Or can she really win a real world prize for these shenanegans?

I’m suggesting that women have impulses in them that are clannish and political, and that the mere will to fight is itself an instinct, when what they want to fight is men as a group.

I’m suggesting that feminism, as a sexual power struggle, is innate to females. This chick is trying to gain power points, status points, by acting like a soldier and leader within an army – within a mafia. She is trying to rise in the ranks in the local chapter of her international gang.

Females aren’t merely individual humans, passing on genes with a suitable mate. Some are soldiers in a warring group. Either you are in the gang, or you get killed by a gang member.

Rebecca Watson apparently has some following in the skeptic/atheist community. She does a well subscribed podcast and has a blog on that I understand.

She didn’t start out on this in high dudgeon. Most like a “word to the wise guys” type video cast, that yeah was entitled and one sided but wasn’t totally over the top. Then when all kinds of manginas fell all over themselves sucking up to her and supporting her, and kept doing that and attacking popular genetics and atheism writer and luminary Richard Dawkins after he ridiculed her degree of “victimization”, she went to town.

I think her main motivation is she sees this as raising her profile in the wider feminist sphere, and breaking out of the skeptic sphere only one, on the back of Dawkins and non mangina men in general.

Even feminism’s alleged greatest achievements of the last century are, in the end, simply an addendum to, a by-product of, the toil, tears and blood of men over the centuries prior to that. The centuries when guys did what was necessary to achieve our level of material prosperity, which in turn allows us luxuries, like paying nannies $85K/year and calling them “teachers.”

Throughout history, the gals, bless them, simply strode behind the widest, strongest male back they could, baby clutched to breast, hoping for the best.

While I have zero interest in going backwards in a material sense, it is pretty annoying to seen women act as though they were equal contributors to progress, and if they were not, it was only because of patriarchal oppression. Riiiight.

I listen to what she has said, and laugh to myself thinking about the situation would have been different if, say, George Clooney were in that elevator and had asked her to coffee (clearly this would never happen, since she is about 10 levels to ugly for him to even look at). She would have posted a video saying: “I just fucked G. Clooney in an elevator!! Female empowerment bitches!!” But a low status, game-lacking guy: “I was just raped!!! A guy asked me for coffee!!! Fuck the patriarchy!!”

But I think the most tragic individual in this whole situation isn’t the beta male who was rejected and called a potential rapist. No, I think the girl is more tragic. The guy can work, gain status, improve his game, and at the very least in 10 years he’ll have more wealth. But the girl is doomed to ever-decreasing happiness. As her looks fade, as her loud, shrill voice crying out against the oppression of women like her becomes ignored, and false rape accusations only go so far, she’ll come to a sad realization: maybe if I was a better person, a guy would love me.

It’s endlessly entertaining (and predictable) to see how often women’s (and feminized men’s) default response to anything they disagree with in regards to gender dynamics is met with a personalization to the contrary. It’s always the “not-in-my-case” story about how their anecdotal, exceptional experience categorically proves the opposite. Men tend to draw upon the larger, more empirical meta-observations whether they agree or not, but a woman will almost universally rely upon her isolated personal experience and cling to it as an encompassing truth that everyone should accept.

ALL women (yes, I said “ALL”) presume that social dynamics should ALWAYS default to a feminine imperative. In essences everyone, male or female, should agree with any social dynamic that benefits the feminine. Without even an afterthought anyone’s circumstance cast into what would benefit a feminine frame and a female ideal. To the feminine mind (of both women and feminized men) this is just the way the world is.

You were talking about message boards raising the standards for argument and discourse, and this is right, and may continue, unless feminists and manginae destroy men’s ability to be anonymous on the web — and they are hungry to bring an end to anonymous web posting.

Jesus, this is absolutely true. Every fight I have had in recent years has been with a woman, and it was when they objected to some universal claim I have made, like there is a strong correlation between education and income. Without fail, it seems, some chick wants to point out that she knows somebody who didn’t go to college and now makes north of 100K, blah blah blah.

As far your comment about feminine social dynamics, I don’t think you can overlook cultural factors. We have houseguests this week from my woman’s native country. Each night, over dinner, we two men speak our politically incorrect minds and the women just listen and laugh, happy to be in the presence of their men. If they object to something, we tsk tsk them, share knowing glances with each other, and continue talking as if they were infants who needed to be shushed. They protest mildly, but quickly quiet down because they don’t want to miss a word.

This is absolutely true. Women naturally see the world through the prism of our own lives. I think this used to be useful in our traditional roles. It helped us to empathize with the people around us because, on some level, we could relate. If we could relate we could better help our husbands and our families deal with whatever needed dealing with.

With feminism spoiling our brains we now use this skill (handicap?) to try to prove some kind of irrelevant point. As in, if it has happened this way to me, it has to have happened to lots of other people as well. Also known as snowflaking on other blogs.

The vote for “most mangina comment” on Phil Plait’s Discovery blog thread (Phil, the Bad Astronomy guy, wins third place himself behind PZ for agreeing with Watson) goes to the male commenter who, in all seriousness, wrote that he always crosses the street in order not to seem to a woman in an uncrowded area that he might be following her or, in overtaking her, trying to overpower her. I think he also said he crosses the street in order not to meet a woman head on who is walking in his direction at night, noting that this would spare the woman from having to make a stressful security assessment about him.

No, he was not being facetious. He was serious. If you find the comment you’ll agree that the guy was not joking. He was trying to say that he was a courteous man. He clearly thinks that “hotties” like Rebecca would admire him for saying that and, maybe, he would get some action as a result.

Sara thanks. i spoke too soon. Ok. I actually saw for myself her video blog and Now I can understand why she was uncomfy and upset. This man clearly wasn’t thinking. This is a woman who just did forum/spiel on sexism. UH hello Mc Fly! Probably not the kind of girl you would approach in that manner and think you would get favorable results.

He gets a bigger fail for starting with “don’t take this the wrong way”. *pushing the palms of my hand on my side temples* ARRRRRGH! lol

now I have seen/heard her side of the story I don’t think should be villified for feeling the way she did. He was out of line.

And I’m pretty laid back and fun loving when it comes to guys approaching me, but now I can understand her fear – not to mention she was in a foreign country.

Uncomfortable is understandable and appropriate. Upset or fearful is not. If she read the guy as a potential rapist or trouble maker of any kind she’s either lying for effect, or is as socially clueless as he was. Hell her ecosystem is male nerds.

What’s notable about this kerfuffle is all the play it’s getting and all the feminist and mangina agreement that the guy did something worse than be slightly impolite, in the circumstances. I do mean slightly.

Richard Dawkins was right to satirize her and others thinking was any big deal or really any deal at all.

The really over the top thing though is her trying to organize a boycott of Richard Dawkins books and speaking engagements for not being in lockstep.

I seriously hate bitches like this. They spit on people who’ve actually been raped by equating their “discomfort” with sexual assault. I have actually cursed women like this out in public.

These types of women are always accusing one guy or another of stalking them. One I know even twisted a guy telling her that she was a horrible person and he never wanted to speak to her again, into harassing her. They have no touch with reality at all, and there is nothing that can justify it. They’re just mentally ill. In fact, I’d say the “rapist around every corner” is a sign of mental instability. Guys should be really careful about women like this, especially if they’re butterface. In my observation, they have a higher tendency towards this behavior than girls who are pretty overall.

A good indicator that a woman may be like this, even while she’s putting her best face forward, is that she thinks every guy wants to shag her.

Another point I’d like to make is that atheists nurtured this monster moreso than religious people. A significant proportion of religious people are and will remain patriarchal. Atheists and progressives however, embraced feminism and helped it along because of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing.

Funny how that is biting them in the ass now. Now the women they lauded are turning on them.

With roughly 50% of rape accusations turning out to be false (apparently this number has held for some time but researchers are only now comparing notes — “Is that what you came up with, too? Because I was sure something was very, very wrong with my study.”) roughly 50% of the population being female, the statistical conclusion is that:

A women selected at random is AT LEAST as likely if not MORE LIKELY to be a “Potential False Rape Accuser” as any randomly selected man is to be a “Potential Rapist”.

Got that, ladies? If you’re going to paint the entire male population as prone to doing something that would land them 20 years in jail, you have to paint the entire female population as JUST AS prone to doing something that should land them 20 years in jail.

This is a case where I get to apply Opus’ First Law of Proximity (so far there isn’t a second) which states:

When a man and a woman are placed alone and within close proximity of each other, then sooner or later they will have sex.

Clearly in the length of an Elevator ride this is not usually possible, but I would suggest that sub-consciously Watson recognises this to be true, and this is the reason for her freaking out so badly. Further I am not at all convinced the guy was Beta. Who cares what one says at 4 am in a foreign country when you are both probably the worse for wear. He obviously excited her enough that it was still on her mind when she got back from Sweden to Boston. She knew she had missed out; this is particularily awful as no-one ever hits on her (as she is so plain), and she so kicks herself that in Boston the rationalisation hamster goes into overdrive. As someone above mentioned the similarity between the slut-walkers and this woman are very close. They are to ugly to get attention so they seek attention which they can then reject. We of course do not have the guys version of events.

Lessons, never EVER EVER be Beta. NOT EVER. Women will forgive anything and everything in an Alpha, and nothing in a Beta. Had the guy just stared at the ceiling or something, she would have been “creeped out” … because he was BETA. Women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males.

If say, the Situation or Charlie Sheen had asked her out, the answer would have been “God YES!”

On the one hand, asking a woman you just met to your hotel room is kind of bad etiquette. But on the other, he figured he’d never see her again so what the hell. I don’t really blame her for feeling uncomfortable about this, but it goes to a bigger issue. Young, spoiled, white, vapid women all over America love this type of shaming behavior on men. Beta male makes some kind of move on her and she’ll be mocking him to her friends, calling him “creepy”, and ruining his reputation. It’s also an attempt at DHV by the female, and it doesn’t seem to have any negative repercussions. I know I’ve been talked about this by women, and most guys probably have, but I’m not sure how to counteract it.

the best way to counteract this – outsource the role of girlfriend – foreign women have not been affected by the whole “creepy stalker” thing… though as I type this, a Brazilian friend has fallen victim after being in this country for about 7-8 years… this is much more widespread than I could have ever imagined…

I think atheist’s might begin to appreciate the benefits of those religious sects that adopt vows of celibacy, silence, and solitude. I am a man of belief myself. I believe they should be spayed, gagged, and deported.

Matt Damon starts out with light banter and a big gin. Confidant stance but at first he only slightly turns towards her. He’s communicating by body language and the light banter that he’s aware that it’s awkward to talk to someone for the first time in an elevator, and that he knows he’s breaking a sort of taboo, but that he’s a cool non threatening guy who gets it.

You missed the MSM talking points on that issue. George Stephanopolous just used that news story to host a reunion with Lorena Bobbit, who is now Lorena Gallo and recently had a baby girl with another guy, and Stephanopoulos says she’s recovered just fine from her victimization back when she had to castrate a sleeping husband (ABC News clearly condones that act as having been in “self defense”). She’s getting over the trauma of having done that and ABC News is proud to report that she’s doing well. Except that she’s completely lost her looks.

Find the video via Google. It’s solid evidence that the US media is controlled by a malignant enemy. It’s the same enemy that pretends that the dumb anti-porn religious freak Michele Bachmann is “in the lead” for the GOP nomination.

I think it’s all about ROMI (return on male investment). Being able to use a come on to be outraged and tell the world is, in her situation (fugly approached by nerd), better than going further with the approacher. The best ROMI in this situation is when the man has made little investment or no investment at all (her making it up). Hot babes won’t do it, because they can’t make much out ifm since they already have high SMV. And if the approacher is higher status SMV than the approached, going further is a better ROMI.

I am a believer. IMHO, Dawkins is really weak when it comes to argumenting atheism. There are other atheist philosophers that know how to argue much better than Dawkins. Dawkins is a good biologist but a bad philosopher.

Having said that, Dawkins is SOMEBODY. Dawkins has achieved SOMETHING in life. He has written good books about biology and, althoug flawed, his books about religion are worthy of respect.

Who is this chick? What has she done? A blog? Don’t make me laugh. An attention-whore that wants to parasite the fame of other people based on her sex. This is easier than doing something worthy by your own.

CH writes: >Feminists, in their hearts, despise the freedom and longevity of male sexuality.<

THIS. It oozes out of every word they write, once they age off the alpha carousel and become prim and proper middle aged broads who want to dictate to everyone else how they should live their lives. Just something I've noticed.

But don’t you see? When an undesirable man (like elevator beta boy) sexualizes her, it’s not the same thing. What he’s doing is CREEPY. This term is a catch-all for many women to label unwelcome attention because it is subjective, namely, it’s how she feels about such attention, rather than how such attention might objectively appear to others. Remember, you can’t question a woman’s feelings.

To any moronic hags and manginas – she has no problem sexually objectifying men of her desires, but god forbid (how ironic) any undesired man do the same to her.

The whole feminist meme regarding men’s (sexual) “objectification” of women is essentially bogus. It’s trying to turn a fundamental and wired in sex difference into male pathology or oppression. Men place a greater weight on the visual attractiveness of women than women do of men, and less on her personality, game, and status – things you learn about mostly after getting to know someone at least a little. Feminists call that objectifying women. As well men are more promiscuous in nature – or want to be, if they can pull it off with cute and hot chicks, so they don’t have to go through an extended vetting period to be sure they’d like to have casual sex with a cute girl.

Attractive women love that alphaish men are attracted to them. Ugly feminists resent that attractive men are attracted to “superficial” women who “don’t mind being objectified” because they have “false consciousness” installed by “the patriarchy”. Yeah like Hollywood, TV, fashion, Cosmo and other women’s magazines are the patriarchy.

Rebecca Watson is among other things boasting that she’s attractive enough to have been objectified, which is quite a stretch. Actually the guy probably was more attracted to her status and smarts, though if he were beta enough, as he looks to have been …

Reality Check: the good looking, charismatic guy is going to rape you and tell everyone in your circle of friends that it was consensual. No one will believe that you didn’t want to have sex with him. The nerdy, awkward and creepy guy who you don’t want to be alone with will never rape you. However, he will be accused of assaulting women.

Better than a fatty, this case shows why we guys need the same legal right to choose willing sex partners that all women in America have had since Roe v. Wade. If prostitution were legal, if this guy were even talking to this sorry excuse for a woman at all, it would have been about atheism, and he wouldn’t have been sharing ideas, he would have been telling her his ideas and to shut up and listen.

CH, spot on with the analysis. Had, “The Dawkins,” not been involved in this stupid bitching session by a feminist, the whole thing would not have received any attention at all. Now, to me, Dawkins can be considered the father of, “The Game,” in one sense — especially if you are from Mystery’s school. A lot of the principles that Mystery lays out are right out of, “The Selfish Gene.” It’s perplexing to see somebody of Dawkin’s stature get involved in stupid shit like this. Goes to show that even the best evolutionary biologist on the planet cannot decipher the female brain( especially the ones bloated with feminism) because he’s only into it theoretically. It’s up to the practitioners( in this case PUAs) to actually apply evolutionary biology to human interactions and make sense out of it. In any case, I have no sympathy for the elevator dude but he can be excused for lacking any knowledge of Game. I am not sure what Dawkins achieved by throwing a huge rock in the sewage.

The crux here is when a beta female is approached by a beta male, the female uses it as signaling device to show the world( she thinks this will raise her value with an alpha male as well as with other females) that she’s worth hitting upon. I’ve seen this happen many times before.

Jay Gatsby
Such women are not looking to villify ALL men. Just those men they don’t like.

Yes. Women seek to create the beta class of men, so that their pussy power can be cashed in for offerings.

I’ve said that before. However this post makes me think that there are instincts about this that sometimes go deeper.

Feminism is not a recent phenomena. It’s an instinct to power that is particularly female. It happens because of how the female mind works – the combination of fuzzy rationalizing feel-speak, the dissumulation, and a deep will to group power and domininance in that group.

Got on an elevator this afternoon, quite hot fem on-board. I leaned back against the wall comfortably and chuckled gently. It took her about three seconds to catch on, and she denied it.
When she looked back, her denial was crushed.
I used his beta story for my game.

She knew about the Watson issue? Or you told her about it as a great opener/topic?

I’ll be using this story this weekend with the non-feminist women in my environment. I’ve also put to use the amusing story about the Southwest Airlines pilot accidentally leaving his mic on while discussing SWA’s policy of hiring only “experienced” stewardesses.

East of the old Iron Curtain, women love to hear about how wacky American feminists are. I present this kind of stuff like Jay Leno would in a monologue.

But for you guys stuck in the anglosphere: do you get to talk about these flaps on sets and dates or would that just end the conversation right quick?

When she turned, I laughed out loud. We both said, “Elevator guy/woman video” and her defenses were down.
Current events can be useful. A woman’s intelligence can be an advantage.
“Know your enemy as you know yourself …” Sun Tzu

I think her main motivation is she sees this as raising her profile in the wider feminist sphere, and breaking out of the skeptic sphere only one, on the back of Dawkins and non mangina men in general.

Raising her profile in the feminist sphere = gaining soldier points in her biker gang. In her mafia.

I see socio-biology at work here. As others have said, her loathing of poor pickup = betas leads her to chastise the man. Yes. But don’t forget that she is a female and operates within a hive mind. She is a pack animal. Her feelings become a social cause AND a personal cause. She wants to keep betas down which tends to result in a power grab for women in general, plus personal solier status in the femme army for her.

It’s personal and political, and it’s an innate female drive. Women war with men and have since we were furry little social marmots and the menfolk walked on two legs and so could carry bananas in exchange for sex.

Well, just more professional victim stuff. Our corrupt society makes such actions rewarding.

Just like the NAACP here in Maryland making a big stink because in a school with 20% black about 40% of the disciplinary actions are against black students. Obvious racism.

Ask any teacher in a Baltimore County public school. The black kids act out. Some schools already have strict quotas for the number of black kids that can be sent to the office. The kids know this. Of course the black kids who are misbehaving need discipline, and the classes they are disrupting need to be brought to order. However, the NAACP will intentionally injure the students who need discipline by depriving them of it, and all the students in his/her class who can’t learn because of the misbehaving student, but, what do they care. They (NAACP) want power. If the students they claim to be helping suffer, they just don’t give a hoot. Not about black students and not about white students. It is all posturing, and all corrupt. They will likely succeed, as they have in the past, degrading the educational process for everyone. They just don’t care.

The parallels to our feminists are striking. Is it any wonder they have similar political leanings? Suppressing honest discussion of the situation is priority number one. Villifying people who disagree is a favorite tactic. And, both groups can only have success in their efforts because of the totally corrupt nature of our courts, media outlets, government, and schools.

Well, that’s a bit of a strong comment for just a pickup effort spurned, but, things are going South fast. So, guys, practice your game, and just put the move on the girl. She’ll likely be grateful you did as long as you show some skill and self-confidence (she won’t like it if you are an obvious clod), and the worst she can do is say no. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. When was the last time you had real fun staying in your comfort zone?

While I have zero interest in going backwards in a material sense, it is pretty annoying to seen women act as though they were equal contributors to progress, and if they were not, it was only because of patriarchal oppression. Riiiight.

Yes, I believe that fuzzy entitlement thinking is also hard wired into females.

As in, you’re leaving me for being a bitch, now I get half your shit.

The demand for severance pay is hardwired. The “justification” is hard wired.

A woman will extract such payment(s) (for life in some jurisdictions like California) because you took the best years of her life (20s & 30s) when she could have chosen a different guy than you. This strategy ignores the fact that she made the CHOICE to get married to you, and in some cases, demanded that you marry her. She led you down the aisle with promises of fidelity, etc… only to leave when her feelings (and “friends”) told her to do so.

It’s clear this was big DHV on her part, a hotter chick probably wouldn’t even mention this because her self esteem is already sky high. This bitch only mentioned this because she wants to be thought of as a chick who gets hit on at 4AM.

Well in part. But beta is as beta does too. And alpha is as alpha does. Well there’s also status which is created overnight and looks – height, fitness, masculine appearance mainly. There’s body language which is harder to control than words – but not impossible. There’s also method acting fake it tell you make it.

His words were very clueless and beta. Closely paraphrasing: “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I thought you were very interesting. Would you like to come with me to my room for some coffee so we can talk?”

If Matt Damon had said the same thing to her at 4am in the morning on her way back to her room exhausted to go to sleep, having talked for hours in the bar and being done with that, she would have turned him down. It’s just clueless. Now if Matt Damon had done the light banter with a confidant but non threatening stance towards her that he did in the elevator clip 30 or so comments above, and not asked her to his room that night, but rather her hotel phone number as she’s leaving the elevator and she’s no longer feeling trapped, so they could maybe meet up the next day to talk, well then it’s possible he might have gotten it, as in the clip.

A lot of commenters have tried to paint this broad as a homely chick that no guy would want to bang. That’s probably only half right. Considering the circles that she runs in, she probably gets a fair amount of male attention and probably a fair amount of dick as well. Looks-wise, she’s in that grey area where plenty of lonely beta males would love to get with her and plenty of not-so-beta guys would be happy to throw one in her from time to time.

I checked out one of the links to her blog and there’s a dead giveaway where she links to the Myspace page of some guy she describes as a “former paramour.” When a girl uses pretentious words like paramour or lover to describe a past relationship, chances are it means that she was some guy’s side piece or booty call. I also took a look at some pictures of her on the google and it seems like her weight goes up and down. Girls whose sexual market value jumps around a lot (say between a 4 and a 6 or a 5 and a 7) are ripe to be perpetually frustrated by the difference between the men they feel entitled to and the men they can actually get.

Also, one of the biggest differences between men and women is that if a guy spends all night in a bar hitting on an 8 and she gets away from him, he’ll most likely happily take home an available 6. Women tend to be exactly the opposite. If they don’t end up with the guy they’re after, they’re likely to actively resent all the guys who try to pick them up afterwards. It’s entirely likely that this chick stayed up until 4 in the morning hoping to get with one particular guy only to end up heading to her room alone and having to deal with some awkward dude, which just reinforced her negative feelings about herself.

Don’t get into situations where the public can’t see you: jogging alone in some parks; at night in a WalMart if few people around have the key out so you don’t have to fiddle with the door; deserted dorms; don’t walk alone from the library back to your dorm at night; workplaces at night if alone and little security; don’t linger outside your hotel room late at night — have your key card out; don’t let your room become known to strangers; don’t walk around alone at night or ride a bus alone at night; be with other friends if at all possible if out at night…ect., ect.

Just thought of something. What about an amiable nerd walking around with a chainsaw. He can smile goofily and say “high” to all the termagants he meets on his daily rounds. If asked, say, on an elvator, why he’s carrying a chainsaw, he can say he’s uncomfortable and only carries it around for personal protection. Chainsaw game?

Another thing — women hate attention from Beta Males because it devalues them in the marketplace. Most all women would prefer an invisible line be set up so that no Beta dare approach, only Alphas. A beta male approaching her means she’s not the hot stuff she thinks she is, and nearly all women not morbidly obese get so much attention they think they are supermodels, only hotter. A beta male approaching and indicating interest to them is insulting — it says to them they are assumed to be unsexy enough for Joe Average to approach. About fifty years ago this woman would have thought it “sweet” that some guy was awkwardly trying to ask her out, and would have taken things (yes/no) from that feeling. Instead of feeling rage because she was by her lights insulted.

This is the origin of the utter, complete hatred women have of beta males.

I agree with the part that there are women who desire men who are not on their level and get peeved when some man below her level (or the ones she wants) comes and tries to get with her. BUT NOT EVERY WOMAN. There are plenty of attractive and average women who don’t think and feel that way. Some women (no matter their attractiveness) have DECENCY and were brought up to not treat people like shit for no reason at all. These same women also see it for what it is – all men have penises and desire to get laid. It doesn’t matter how they look, their social or economic status, their skin or hair or eye color, or if they are Beta, Alpha, Omega or Gamma. They are still MEN who if heterosexual, want and desire women they find attractive. Some of these “beta” guys will muster up the gonads to approach women and others won’t. The ones that do, I feel why make them feel like shit? I don’t hold any negative views against any man that goes after what he wants – I don’t care how ugly or attractive he is. And I know plenty more women who share this same sentiment.

Some women with decency still (although possibly repulsed) believe in treating everyone with respect. I guess I really have a high esteem of myself but not to the point I think I am “all that” that I as a human being can afford to be rude or mean to another human being b/c they are “not on my level” or the level of attractiveness I feel they should be. I don’t give a shit how attractive/unattractive a female is, she has no right to treat ANYONE with disrespect, look down on another person b/c she has “looks”. If she does, she’ll get what’s coming to her eventually in the form of KARMA – like anyone who mistreats people for no reason would. Its ridiculous. What does it matter if a beta or alpha or omega approaches you? Men are men. Yes its human nature to want the guy/gal whom you desire to be receptive to you – but its life and it doesn’t always work that way.

I don’t get insulted by unattractive men trying to speak with me? I damn sure don’t consider myself “unattractive” and unworthy of “alpha” male attention, therefore I only speak with them b/c I can’t get anything better. Its not that serious for some of us women. Betas and the like are MEN like everyone else. I know my worth as a woman and if I am not attracted to them but they are being sincere and respectful I give them the same in return. PERIOD. If an Alpha or hottie guy doesn’t approach me that night, like clockwork I will get approached by one on a different occasion. No biggie.

Its called good karma🙂 more of those women you describe should try it.

The nice girls do not get face time in the media. Only the indignant nasty hypocrite women. Women get the message that all men are rapists. Men are bad. But men consume the media as well. Their take away is that women will accuse you a man of all manner of nonsense. Best for men to stay away from women. The same propaganda will affect the sexes in different ways.

We all assume that the essence of Miss Watson’s tale is correct. We only have her word for it, that anyone was in an Elevator with her, let alone a man who made a pass. Women lie about Rape: If they will lie about that they will lie about anything.

If she is telling the truth, isn’t it about time the guy in question come forward and tell us his version of events. I can say it wasn’t me as I have not been in Sweden in this current Millenia. Of course, I could be lieing.😉

One interesting angle to this is that atheists do not have the same religious codes, hence the same moral and social codes as the most of the rest of us. The bible has been the blueprint or touchstone in Western culture for not just laws but social memes. Examples are “Thou shall not commit adultery” or “homosexuality is an abomination” or “Thou shall not covet”.

While not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, these values are not all necessarily shared by atheists either. So approaching a near stranger and asking them for sex is not immoral because who’s to say it is immoral, but, feeling uncomfortable about it is.

One interesting angle to this is that atheists do not have the same religious codes, hence the same moral and social codes as the most of the rest of us. The bible has been the blueprint or touchstone in Western culture for not just laws but social memes. Examples are “Thou shall not commit adultery” or “homosexuality is an abomination” or “Thou shall not covet”.

While not exclusive to Judaism or Christianity, these values are not all necessarily shared by atheists either. So approaching a near stranger and asking them for sex is not immoral because who’s to say it is immoral, but, feeling uncomfortable about it is.

Being heterosexual makes the very thought of queer sex repulsive, you half-wit. Do you really need your magic invisible sky fairy to forbid you to suck a guy’s cock and take it up the ass, or do you just find the prospect disgusting all by itself?

Atheist evangelists flock to internet comment sections like rats on landfills. They are just dying to preach about a “magic invisible sky fairy” to people who couldn’t care less. The Word must be spread, he must strenuously insist that something that does not exist does not exist. Have you heard it doesn’t exist?

Prof. Woland wasn’t even saying anything contrary to atheism. He was pointing out a cultural fact. Does this deter the Jehovah-Witness-cum-nihilist from preaching to his anonymous congregation the Bad News revealed to him in an eighth-grade epiphany? Nothing deters the true believer with the itch to proselytize. He only requires the slightest reference to the G-word to set him off on a tangent.

And is your agenda is to follow me around and say “not” after every comment?

Yes, I preach my religion when someone is preaching their own religious nonsense in opposition.

What’s more, this blog is a citadel built on sand. It’s author and his fan club don’t realize how shaky their conjecture is. You have to drop your moorings deeper than a few catchy turns of phrase. The mission is too important not to call out garbage arguments intramurally. They will collapse upon first contact with an opponent of any intellectual worth. They won’t survive anything but the friendliest of challenges.

Picking on confused webcam girls and blogger-eunuchs is fun and all, but as soon as you find yourself unable to preselect your opposition you will find yourself disarmed and unprepared. It’s pathetic that most of you are content to cower in your ghettos back-slapping and high-fiving each other. You apparently don’t care about the culture or the future ruins you are leaving behind. I do. And none of you are in obvious fighting trim.

Truthfully, was your prostate removed or are you really an old woman? For kicks, please state the youngest woman you would fuck and what that age difference would be approximately. If married, please state honestly how often per year you have sex with her.

It’s good you finally revealed your true agenda on this forum, which is to proselytize a typically American asexual version of Christianity here. You spent months beating around the bush.

You also just wrote on another thread that King Solomon and King David’s MO of having harems was BAD, BAD, BAD. My reading of the Old Testament didn’t come across such criticism, which only older females would want to make.

More tellingly, on the other thread you wrote that you assume it is part of “Christianity” to hate on massive age difference relationships.

The Old Testament wouldn’t support you there either.

Note, the fundamental drive of feminists is to hate on older men having sexual relations with younger women.

You’re no different from a feminist except you self righteous Christian male White Knighters are more dangerous politically than Rebecca Watson and her type.

Why do homosexuals seek to recruit? Do you have any idea of the origins of the prohibitions to homosexuality in Christianity or other religions, for that matter? Do you have any understanding or knowledge of Ancient History or why Christianity became the most important phenomenon of the previous millenium? You can know this stuff and still be a devoted atheist. Obviously not, from your comments.

Reading your other stuff, you’re a pretty bright fellow. However, your vitriol is indicative of insecurity in your beliefs. Why the rage? Christian morality and the concept of dignity in the individual is also the root of your secular humanism. You refuse to see that, brave atheist. Me thinks your spleen is Dutch courage working itself up to face the oblivion you secretly fear. You’re the idiot here.

There is a widespread stupidity weed growing throughout this anti-feminist garden, and that is the idea that “game” depends on “evo psych” depends on “atheism.”

Atheist proselytizers and shout-down artists attempt to intimidate through volume and repetition so that an unspoken conclusion is free to take root: Anyone who is not loudly and brashly atheist — whether he is agnostic, indifferent, or a publicly confessing Christian — must be stupid at best or malicious at worst. So the atheists get free rein to sow petty lies among the great truths spoken here.

No.

I am here to say that not only is atheism unnecessary for anti-feminist game, it is ultimately cannibalistic against what it claims to support. And at very least, atheism is not some badge of intellectual superiority for the rest of us to cower in silence at its brandishing. In fact, it is more likely a signal of the opposite, an unreflected string of assumptions wrapped up in unearned, self-righteous indignation.

I am a Christian man. I confess to the truth of Jesus Christ. Choose between tolerating my kind or tolerating feminism. None of my faith is contradictory to the wisdom found on this site, except at the margins, where chumps insist on getting deep, so deep they are in over their pretty little heads. You think I am a rube? A thoughtless propagandist? Someone with sexual dysfunction? You are either projecting or reaching for prepackaged excuses to dismiss a contrary view without doing the minimal work of minimal thinking. If you insist on propounding indefensible slurs against faithful men like me, I will be happy to feed you the intellectual shit sandwich you deserve. You in? You want to really discuss the foundations of the faith, or can we just declare it irrelevant and proceed in mutual respect? You refrain from the casual contempt, and my defense will become unnecessary.

But that won’t do, will it? I have seen to the bottom of this type. Lots of noise and blog references and borrowed wisdom and unclever insult and nothing to back their prejudices up. No, they squeeze us into one of their asinine categories (Oh, he believes in God, that makes him a White Knighter), and it’s barely worth a reply to correct the misimpression.

It is enough for now to declare that your half-baked half-wit spasms aren’t even half the story. It is enough that the silent men who put up with the silly, irrelevant, irreligious asides published here be reminded we can sort the wheat from the chaff without compromising a bold confession of faith.

And for the rest of you who haven’t seen the inside of a church in the last decade? If it has become a haven for queens and feminists it’s because you abandoned it to them, just like you abandoned our politics, universities, entertainment, and media. It has nothing to do with the creed, and in fact church doctrine is more supportive of “game” than ignorant outsiders can imagine.

You think there might maybe just might be a reason why feminism gravitates toward atheism, and vice-versa (as demonstrated by the blog post under which we are all commenting)? There is a crack in the foundation too deep for you to easily inspect, much less fix. The twin sophistries of atheism and feminism must be forever united against natural law. So either chose sides, or cease fire on my faith until our mutual enemy is subdued. After the harpies are scattered we can deal with your cockamamie delusions of superior intellect.

1 – You just wrote in the other thread that “women’s bodies are temples and PUAs are vandals”: Then you had the nerve to write “I know some of you will think that’s pedestalizing but”.

But what?

2 – You also conducted what is called “envy shaming” by making it very clear that you think a good Christian man wouldn’t mate with women half his age, despite Moses and Noah and David and Solomon doing more than just that because they had the OPTIONS to do more than that.

Heck, didn’t you read the post about the 51 year old actor who just married a 16 year old? The old guy looked younger and better looking than she did and she won’t age well, so he didn’t get the better deal there. He sounds like a good religious man for wanting to actually marry her. There’s no need to want to shame him just because you can’t get a young wife now yourself.

Except for among the Amish and some Mormon offshoot communities, men who ally with western church communities these days no longer have real power and options. Their fat hag wives hold the real power and that’s why the castrated males misrepresent “Christianity” as being about how men should not date younger women (which is, “coincidentally,” the main drive of feminism beside the drive to replace males with the state via wealth transfer).

This obsession about shaming men for dating younger women appears to other men, many of whom consider themselves to be Christian believers like yourself, as evidence of envy and sexually dysfunctional. Sexual dysfunction could be as “mild” as just having blue balls from being married to a fat hag too long. Envy, expressed via dishonest prose, can be considered a sexual dysfunction.

Anyway, if you want to rail against premarital sex, have at it.

But given that some of us want premarital sex with the most nubile young women, consider avoiding “envy shaming” of others regarding age difference and multiple partners.

And, politically speaking, if you aren’t going to back a pro-male candidate who has at least a nod of respect from the candidates Gary Johnson and Ron Paul (a proper Christian man), tons of anti-feminist males won’t vote with you in 2012. Religious “Christian” right candidates like Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Huckabee are all radioactive to the male vote because they clearly hate men and don’t value the male vote.

As seen with that outrageous “Family Values Pledge” that Bachmann signed last week, the “Christian right” in America is still at war with America’s single men. She pledged to outlaw “all forms of pornography and prostitution” where the words “all forms” are particularly ominous and indicative that the Christian right in 2011 still as no desire to compromise and work with single men on good, small government. The MSM is saying she’s polling #1 in Iowa (the liberal media wants a leftism vs theism meme to prevail in every election).

This is not the time or place for mimicking C.S. Lewis. Ron Paul is a good Christian who’s words are more relevant these days, especially on small government and keeping the state out of the bedroom.

@N/A

Ritmo was a leftist in his thirties who openly admitted to trying to date new age women his own age by agreeing with their politics. King A doesn’t fit that profile and King A doesn’t have the same malignant sarcasm.

Weren’t you two reminiscing about this bygone commenter a few posts back as well? Just how long have you old farts been hanging out on this porch kvetching like a couple of hearing-impaired pensioners?

You both need to stop projecting. You’re publicly jousting with odd psychological phantoms that derive from fuck knows where. I’d be happy to correct any misimpressions I may have unintentionally encouraged between you, but honestly, I wouldn’t know where to begin. It’s like trying to have a conversation with Alzheimer’s patients.

Maya,
Yes, people who say that women actually want to get raped are wrong. Severely deluded, or just joking about it. Having rape fantasies is not the same as wanting to be raped for real (and some women I personally know have rape fantasies). If people think women want to be raped or if they wish rape on you or anyone else, it’s their problem. They can’t hurt anyone with their wishes anyway.

Yes, but I still think that ‘rape fantasies’ are actually fantasies about very passionate sex. I have such fantasies, too. But this is not an actual ‘rape’. We shouldn’t use the same word for two very very very different things.

Maya,
If you define rape fantasy as a fantasy about being raped for real, then yeah, I’d say they are different things – what women fantasize about and the thing you define as rape fantasies. But they just happen to call what woman fantasize about “rape fantasies”. I think most people realise it doesn’t mean women want to be raped for real.

Her wiki page indicates that she’s separated and going through a divorce? Could that be all there is to it? A bitter divorced 30 year-old whose husband was probably cheating on her with an actually hot woman? Her self-esteem was already in the gutter and then this guy “traps” her in an elevator at 4 am. Her video was probably indirectly aimed at her ex-husband.

You missed something. It’s not just anger. Because of her harrowing experience of being spoken to in an elevator, this woman now can snuggle in the warm musty blanket of female support and sympathy for months, if not years. She’ll get hugs and soft words in a protective crowd of less-atractive women (hot girls don’t waste their time being supportive of their inferiors). She’ll tell and retell her story with pauses for tears. She’ll start calling herself a “survivor” of this ordeal. And other women will eat it up like it was a pint of Haagen-Dasz.

I think it’s because of stories like these, along with stringent sexual harassment standards, that men are generally too cautious with women even to the point of being afraid to approach them. That’s why guys need these game blogs now to figure out how to talk to women because they’ll often so easily cry harassment. It’s a shame, really. I know it’s happening a lot here in the US, but countries in Europe for example have a much more relaxed attitude when it comes to the sexes interacting. An attitude, of course, which requires a woman to take much more responsibility for her own actions, unlike here.

A rabid feminist just beat a “Tea Party” candidate in a California run off election.

The problem? The “Tea Party” candidate had concentrated on, drum roll please, abortion and stopping gay marriage. He was more or less a socialcon candidate. The Tea Party was subverted by early 2009.

Why not try concentrating on men’s rights for a change?

It’s like both US parties have agreed with each other to share power by pretending to disagree on abortion and gay marriage, neither of which issue will motivate the heterosexual male vote to go one way or the other.

I guess you hit the nail on the head. One of the reasons the system is stuck and changes are hard to make if not impossible is that the parties and media have brainwashed most people into focusing obsessively on a few pet issues.

Feel bad for the homely webcam girl. She obviously has no real ability to deal with forward men, probably out of a simple lack of experience, which of course has everything to do with her deliberately unappealing appearance. Few men have hit on her in such a way, and the only recourse she has is her ridiculous feminist pose. The social toolbox is spare.

So here comes a poor fellow who is totally on her same ideological wavelength playing the only cards he has, a weak pair of twos. She is put on the spot and falls back on book-learned panic rather than allowing the situation to develop into the more normal flattery or even excitement usually generated by such spontaneous come-ons, even by schlubs. She then ferries this baffling incident inside her all the way to her webshow where she spills it out as awkwardly as the guy’s original flirtation.

It is ugly nerd-socializing all the way around, aided by the internet-fueled hyperattention that no woman of her conventional attractiveness could ever naturally command. She wasn’t prepared for the private incident, and now, taking it more public than she perhaps realized, she really isn’t prepared for the incongruent reaction. Hence the indiscriminate lashing out against her hero Dawkins. Plain Jane is in over her plain little head.

This is not a pair of tree swallows on their breeding grounds. Songs are not written and art does not depict the love of hippos and wildebeest. Let me have a burger deluxe without a window to the slaughterhouse. Thick dark curtains round their beds.

Feminists, in their hearts, despise the freedom and longevity of male sexuality.
>>

a little bit of penis envy there but more importantly they are all experiencing the harrowing decline in their looks. Men can’t really relate unless you’ve owned a stock or a home that’s lost 50% of its value in a few years. Female value (beauty), collapses with a 5 year half life after 18 barring plastic surgery (megan fox is botoxed already) or fitness/beauty endeavors. Models are “too old” by age 23. That’s what they hate. Follow the money.. look at the booming spa market, etc.. women desperately clawing onto their looks.

The ramifications for single men is universal hatred for men who date scandalously younger. Dating younger is great, but be aware to “trust no one.” Your male friends are jealous and nearly every woman will sabotage your relationship. It is a huge price for dating considerably younger women.

I’ve had many times in my life where I could not afford a haircut, and had to cut it myself. That love-shack near the beach in a scuba diving town with the hotty was real. No windows, cement floor. I’d buy new shoes every year or two. At times I was late with my cheap rent, and sometimes I had to use coins for the daily booze.

I never lacked for pussy, and I never had a boss.

Fuck the femtocracy. Honestly, you don’t need it. You THINK you need it. You don’t.

Spot on again, xsplat. I just have to do it. Just spoke with a friend today who was in Colombia last month. Like me, he has his sights set on Medellin, and the guy he went with seriously plans to be there within the year.

That was a bad pickup attempt. Not likely to create success. But also not likely to result in a rape, unless the guy was very irrational and decided to rape a woman in such an obvious place. But criminals are sometimes irrational and don’t even seem to care that they’ll get caught. One friend’s husband got attacked by a man he didn’t know, who beat him almost to death and then sat down to wait for the police to arrive. So I don’t blame her for becoming uncomfortable. I become uncomfortable each time I’m in a room alone with a man, and he looks like he wants me. Frankly, I’d rather not even walk into a man’s apartment with just us two, unless I’m gonna have sex with him (and they sometimes ask me to help me fix their computer and stuff like that). She was too hard on the guy who hit on her though. He didn’t do anything bad to her, and he should be able to ask women out, even if it’s in an elevator.

Amazing, isn’t it, how it’s always the least attractive women that are constantly terrified of being raped.

I’d also guess that she (and others like her) despise and loathe male desire because they’ve rarely been the objects of it. The boys were always salivating over the hot ones (which also earned the scorn of the “oh so superior” homely and butt ugly nerdy girls who extolled their intelligence as a hallmark of their “superiority” over the “slutty” cheerleaders) and so decided it was easier to hate that which they truly craved.

I listen to the Skeptic’s Guide podcast occasionally. It’s pretty good. They mostly focus on anti-vaccination lunacy, alternative ‘medicine’, psychic nonsense and the like. Stuff that is as dangerous as religion.

I do remember that a couple of years ago she married some british dude and moved to England to be with him.

I’m generally more attracted to atheist chicks, though christian chicks do have pump-and-dump value (get out quick, because listening to them will bore you to tears). I hang out in hipster neighborhoods because I have a bit of a thing for young artist tarts. Most people in such areas are atheist, and the vast majority of the young broads are completely eager to be dominated by a strong man. Most of the ‘feminism’ you find in the bohemian crowd is a facade that quickly crumbles. You’ll find more acceptance of traditional gender roles there than you’ll find in the ‘conservative’ suburbs that are awash with ‘professional’ women.

wouldn’t it be funny if she simply made this whole thing up? or if what the guy actually said to her was ‘where’s the nearest place to get coffee around here?’ which her brain mistranslated as ‘wanna have some coffee with me?’

Basically she’s trying to extend notions of sexual harassment civil law or code of conduct way beyond the workplace, to essentially everywhere. No dice. It’s oppressive enough in the American workplace, the hair trigger way it’s often interpreted. She wants that hair trigger to apply to all public spaces it seems. That would be really pernicious and supremely misandrous.

Repeatedly badgering a woman who’s indicated she has not interested isn’t good. Stalking is a (minor) crime in the US. But guys have every right to attempt to interact with a woman they’re attracted to and to ask her out. She has every right to say no, and if he persists to tell him to leave her alone.

Yeah this guy did it in an amazing awkward and excessively direct manner which was guaranteed to result in failure, but that’s not the larger point. He didn’t keep it up. He didn’t badger her. Nor did he in any way threaten her, even by body language. In fact he appeared nervous she said.

If it makes her or other women uncomfortable to be considered in a sexual light, as well as for intellectual content she brings, well really that’s just too damn bad. Men do tend to consider young women they’re attracted to in a sexual light. Goes with being a man. Plenty of women consider men they’re attracted to in a sexual light as well. Men just don’t tend to bitch about it the way feminists often do.

It is utterly unfair and misandrous to propose to tie men up in knots so that no overly sensitive feminist ever has to feel the least smidgen of discomfort.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first assessment. This has approached rationalization for punishment of thought crime, and attempts to point this out are summarily dismissed in a spray of semantic bullshit, ostensibly plausible deniability and emotional appeals re “the plight of this poor woman”.

She’s received hate mail, you see, and support has been less than universal from the unenlightened rabble.

They have the whole machine working. I just hope that this is a bridge too far.

This is the point I was making earlier. This is a deliberate campaign, invented by lesbians, who quickly took over the feminist movement, and it is quite literally an effort to eliminate the competition by gaining enough political power to make them serfs. Feminists resent men because men are able to act and take initiative on their desires and shape the world. Most women can’t even read a map. They resent men because they want to be men and maybe they even share males’ abilities and initiative but can’t really match them, let alone surpass them. They are perpetual betas in an alpha world. Moreover, they’re limited by their perversions from getting the best women available nor can they pass on their genes. Moreover, they still have womens’ egos and expectations of entitlement that go begging. Gaining female power the traditional way via men and sex indignates them and this is their solution- to change the world to conform to them at the vast majorities’ expense. Do not underestimate the subliminal influence of homosexuality in Cultural Marxism. Mancuse was also a homosexual and he saw it as more democratic and equal and therefore the most desirable state for a Marxist Utopia. This theme is common coin in the PC political world. This is why Gays are exalted in the PC hierarchy. This is a dangerous and evil philosophy we are facing. It is all the more dangerous because it is well masked.

We’re born in discomfort… and for most of the world, people’s lives pretty much progress amidst discomfort 24/7… Western women need a kick in the ass… and men need to make it known, in no uncertain terms, that ‘comfort’ is not an admirable goal of this existence… and doesn’t impress us.

I don’t think I have ever realized how big the divide was between men and women. *sigh* There is such hurtful anger and animosity between men and women today. its so disheartening. I think the way to solve it is put men on one side of the globe (you guys can have the colder parts), and women on the other side of the globe (preferably the side that has more sun and beaches). Do that for 6 months. Come back together – Problems solved.

Oh stop equivocating. I see this type of shit from women all the time. The problem we have between men and women, now and the past few decades, is caused mainly by feminists, their male enablers and women complicit in their silence. Period. Men have no voice in society, unless of course it’s pro women.

Any anti-feminist or pro-man thoughts are forbidden. That’s why men are angry. We just have a few blogs in the manopshere to vent on, women have the entire media, academia and government.

Where feminism it doesn’t work is when we start tweaking nature or biological differences. When you do you end up with a big assed mess – unless you work hard at upholding those differences . Most humans are incapable of this. The idea of promoting women to turn away from their natural female tendencies in order to prove to men we can “do what they do” and telling men to accommodate those needs (while understand it may not be in their true nature to do such things) then we need to stand by and support those men who do that. B/C I firmly believe men by nature are predatory and self motivated its women who have to civilize them for the benefits of creating a harmonious world and seeing us beyond a sexual quest. Basically we have to train you to be nice to us. Lol. Insert the nice guy. Instead of STICKING BY THE men who have managed to adapt to seeing women beyond his animalistic natural self we shit on them and send mixed signals. When you send one message that women need “the nice guy” but then support the very men who aren’t – problems occur.

If women want to make sure we can live in this world without fear of men then if we encourage them to develop traits that may be out of their nature (i.e. nice guy, accommodating, compassionate) then we need to stick by it and not be wishy washy. When this occurs, it only makes men feel manipulated thus, wanting to resort back to his true nature of basically “not giving a shit “ about anything but himself. When that happens we’re all done b/c then we’re screwing up the balance. Don’t ask for men to forsake what comes naturally to them in order to make our lives easier, and then turn around and not support it “he’s too nice”. Its one or the other. We either want men as they come naturally or we want them as we can mold them. If we want to be appreciated as women – then be a woman who embraces what makes her uniquely different from a man. If you want to be masculine and “do what the boys do”, then do it and stay true to it in the face of being treated as such. Pick one and be done with it.

Actually, Neecy, you describe the world I grew up in and it worked better and had far less animosity and stress. My marriage works that way and its at least as much a question of practice as principle. Both parties simply agree to limit their causticly selfish behavior. Practice becomes habit and habit becomes tradition and principle. Moreover, men were nice and respectful to women. Women could walk down the street alone at night and not fear assault. You didn’t swear or fart in their presence. You treated them with deference and respect and this is the big part- they returned it in kind. We could probably create a hybrid where sexuality wasn’t quite so repressed, but this sexual revolution has been hijacked by the Jacobins.

I surely wish those days would come back. If you even just listen to the music from yesterday compared to today, men were so much more respectful of women b/c women enjoyed being mysterious & were aware of small things to do to attract men. They even appreciated the respectful men and only a minority of women went for bad boys. Today’s culture? Psssh. Nowadays women have replaced the small feminine things they used to do to attract and keep men interested in her mystery with just plain ole sex. Its like what incentive do men have these days to be chilvaric (is that a word lol NONE. They get the milk free very easily.

(2 part post)
I don’t agree WHOLEY. I think there is enough blame to throw around to both genders.
RE: Feminism
I believe feminism HAS a sort of inconsistent wishy-washy messaging to men AND to women. I also feel feminism (moreso in male/female relationship dynamics) does continue downplay the Innate NEED for a balancing of scales for men and women to be harmonious. That means the differences between the two should be celebrated and embraced so that those differences can achieve what I believe is the whole purpose of that balance – our existence & procreation. If not, women would be walking around with penises men would be able to bear children. IOW’s – we aint the same and i
ts for a reason.

B/C I am Christian (oh God here comes a Neecy story) I believe in the whole idea of man and woman as a balance to each other one being in a dominant and the other in a submissive role. But the reality is once you throw in human nature and the world in which we live in, the two will not always be operating on the same level at all times. Hence, It’s a man’ s world. It is what is . That means men are in the position of dominance. Okay. Men by nature are predatory. We know what happens when people are in control. Their needs, desires, intentions, laws, etc., come FIRST while others same needs, desires, intentions, etc., come second. Its just human nature and I accept it. This is where you Insert the need for a FORM of feminism to have some sort of a protective barrier for the weaker gender. But shit has gone haywire (don’t know where or how) and its not doing what it was intentionally set up for (which IMO was moreso for women to have rights to work and be self sufficient).

There is a need for feminism – moreso for women to be able to be self sufficient in a society where men set up the rules of love, protection and worthiness – (i.e. younger & beautiful women are more valuable in a man’s eyes). And also b/c its MAN who sets up and decides what beauty is in his eyes. B/C women don’t stay young forever and b/c there are women who don’t fit into the average males assessment of “worthiness” these women need to have a form of protection (in the name of resources) to live and take care of herself. THAT is where feminism works.

“– moreso for women to be able to be self sufficient in a society where men set up the rules of love, protection and worthiness –”

Please don’t make me laugh. Self-suficient??? The only aim of feminism is to subsidize women’s choices by means of the State or the former husbands.

” (i.e. younger & beautiful women are more valuable in a man’s eyes). And also b/c its MAN who sets up and decides what beauty is in his eyes. B/C women don’t stay young forever and b/c there are women who don’t fit into the average males assessment of “worthiness” these women need to have a form of protection (in the name of resources) ”

BS. First, if they have a form of protection, they are not self-sufficient. Second, ugly women don’t deserve resources because men see them ugly the same way ugly men don’t deserve resources because women see them ugly.

You contradict yourself. You want beautiful woman to be supported by men. You want ugly women being supported by the State (using men’s taxes). And then you are talking about self-sufficiency. Give me a break.

You COMPLETELY missed my point. COMPLETELY. Who the hell said anything about the damn STATE taking care of women? What is wrong with you – try READING! nothing more aggravating than someone who completely distortes what you are saying. Whatever, take it how you want to take it. AT this juncture it doesn’t even matter…..

So what are women to do in a male dominated world where men make all the rules? Live like the gals in the middle east with no rights no nothing? I’m not sure what some men want from women. My heads turning and I think i am done with this discussion. I feel like I am starting to become jaded.

Most guys around here are fine with basic feminism. Most feel that women should be able to compete for any kind of job. Most however don’t feel affirmative action or hiring set asides, or disparate impact test for sex discrimination are at all fair, since they all assume that equal results is the only fair or non irrationally discriminatory outcome and so seek to social engineer that.

It’s divorce law 2.0 and family courts lobbied extensively by feminist organizations which are so unfair to men, and so too hair trigger sexual harassment law and policies, hair trigger and guilty before being proven innocent VAWA, and so on which are so unfair. Also the educational establishments working to feminize boys in schools by not allowing rough housing, enough recess and so on. In all sorts of ways the schools playing field has been tilted towards girls, and all sorts of things were tried until girls started doing notably better in schools the boys, and then the most effective policies at that retained. So lots of quizzed and homework are given more grading weight, and final exams, which girls are more likely to choke on are given less. On and on.,

There has been this divide for decades. The only difference is that it was one-way. Women whining, insulting, mistreating men. You didn’t notice it, right? You never heard any of your friends complaining about “men” and telling things such as “men are pigs”. Right? Not once in your life, right?

You never heard a feminist telling men are deadbeat dads, rapist, etc. Right? You never watched TV and see men depicted as dunkerhead. Right?

You didn’t care because you were not affected. But many men lived lifes of quiet desperation. Now that the men are starting to give back one percent of all the hate and animosity they have received for forty years, now women are shocked and appalled. Good grief.

“I think the way to solve it is put men on one side of the globe, and women on the other side of the globe”

In this scenario, men wouldn’t have sex, granted. But we’d survive. Now look outside your window. Whatever you see it has been invented and built by men. Women’s side of the world wouldn’t have roads, electrical power, houses, computers, most private companies and so on and so on. Women’s corner of the world would devolve quickly to the Stone Age. Women would whine and whine about these cruel men that had left them alone but they wouldn’t do a thing.

No offense to you neeecy but I do not get along with women. I never have, even as a very young child. I would not last for 6 months unless I could hole up somewhere alone in a cave. (That is not to say I am not entirely pleasant to women and and often have nice conversations with them, but I have never been one to keep women friends. I have had a couple and they always peter out.)

OK wait. In the beginning of the thread she was cool. Towards the end, she started to lose it.
But hey, this site is not recommendable for nice chicks. Despite all the wisdom and universal truths, there is some underlying misoginy (or at least loathing of female hypergamy).
I am a guy so all of this is music to my ears, but it may be hard to accept for an average girl.

Haven’t noticed her 6:29 pm post. Yeah, she’s losing it right there. The male dominated world where men make all the rules is a clear indication that the weed of feminism has a deep root. I know quite a few women that would never utter such a sheer nonsense, in a North American context. I can proudly say that two of them are my daughters. One is still in early teens, the other is 24. She curses feminism with an increased frequency.

If feminists hate the freedom of male sexuality why would they ever create this society where only alphas win? It was never betas who epitomized the freedom of male sexuality, it was alphas. The guys who never settled, broke many hearts, and screwed a new chick each night. Aren’t these the guys feminists want to get back? These are the fellows who broke their hearts after all. Instead they’ve created a society that’s never been more alpha friendly for the guys who represent the freedom of male sexuality above all else.

Perhaps they realize you cant stop a alpha no matter what you do. He’s going to get his surplus of females one way or the other. So, instead they shit all over betas to feel better about being dumped by the alpha over and over? Sigh, while men do prey on the weak, I’ve noticed women are especially amoral and ruthless when it comes to preying on the weak.

They didn’t mean to create a society where only alphas win. Women who don’t understand/believe in game don’t realize it is the alphas they want. They truly and honestly believe that it is the sensitive, caring, devoted man that they want. But that man has to be alpha as well. Not only these things. If he is only these things the feminists are disgusted. They truly can’t and won’t see the difference. Only that that guy (the beta) just didn’t do it for me. They won’t be able to verbalize rationally why.

Basically, the law of unintended consequences. Before feminism, more alphas wished to settle and marry. Now, there are very few, even for the women out there who would like to be good wives to them. (Of course, there are far fewer of these as well.)

Basically, the law of unintended consequences. Before feminism, more alphas wished to settle and marry. Now, there are very few, even for the women out there who would like to be good wives to them. (Of course, there are far fewer of these as well.)

As women fuck the guys who are getting fucked, feminism that freed sex from marriage causes the single men to feast or starve. Feasting men aren’t hungry, and familiarity breeds contempt. Hungry men, are still hungry and easy marks for the pussy for security scam.

I don’t believe patriarchy was a female invention. Men will always be the stronger sex physically and also mentally. Women have always needed that but need it even more when pickings are slim.

I just a had thought, though. I do believe we are, ever so slowly swinging back. Look at the popularity of Mad Men. Also, this fall I believe there are two more shows coming out based in the “good ‘ol’ days”. However, who would be more able to swing it back further, tradition men or tradition women? Or is it a combination of both? Feminists have never (and will never) be able to stomp out beauty and femininity. Which truly draw men. I think when all but the most diehard feminist see this, women try for this ideal as most still want a husband. (Granted they try too late, but it is something.)

I just reread my post. First of all “traditional”, I shouldn’t post so early. Second, one could argue based on what I said that the patriarchy is molded by women because men need us to give up sex. We will use that to get you to protect us in times of famine and we you want to be our supplicants in time of plenty. Because the men want sex, you basically allow us to do this.

Whether or not this is a conscious decision made by women could be argued. I don’t think it is on the grand scale. It is our ability to rationalize our way through anything that does it. But guys, your predecessors listened to us and allowed it.

That’s because the majority was only silently complicit throughout this assault on mens’ civil rights. Women also think men are on this planet to make stuff for them and fix things and when they’re ovulating, maybe sex, i.e. solipsistic. Very few of them ever saw the big picture. Information was filtered to prevent the smart people from connecting the dots. People thought it was fair at the time and didn’t see what would happen once the Jacobins took over the Feminist movement. Most people aren’t all that big picture oriented anyway and those that are have imperfect information to create a big picture with, etc., etc.

Stingray wrote: I just a had thought, though. I do believe we are, ever so slowly swinging back. Look at the popularity of Mad Men. Also, this fall I believe there are two more shows coming out based in the “good ‘ol’ days”.

Good thought. You are absolutely right, we are swinging back, but it won’t be “ever so slowly.” We will snap back and it won’t take long. A society cannot long survive while blatantly ignoring natural law. “You can heave nature out with a pitchfork, and yet she will come back again” (Horace). In times of emergency, we won’t be saying “he or she.” We’ll be looking to the men who can deliver. The most predictable emergency in the history of man is upon us. We are the brokest nation ever with no character to do what’s necessary to avoid calamity. Therefore it will have to occur.

To that end, consider this. Michele Bachmann is the last possibility for a female president. The century of indulging princesses out of intellectual conceit will soon give way to crisis and anomie. By the time we cycle through the effluent that is the Baby Boomer generation, our house will be in shambles. No damn fool is going to suggest (for a long while if ever) that we rearrange the imperative of governance back around the needs of single mothers, the paternalistic nanny-state mythos that pushed us over the brink of international fiscal suicide, justified by feminist daydreaming.

Been following this whole rape thing for like ever. I’m an avid reader and yet often don’t comment, but I do enjoy reading some the comments for hearty good laughs. I did a search on women and rape fantasies and there is an abundance of them. Just thought I’d share an interesting perspective that I found on this blog: http://www.takeninhand.com/when.rape.is.a.gift

What a load of vitriol here. I’m no feminist, but I fail to see what Rebecca’s looks have to do with anything. If she weren’t a “crooked-faced atheist chick” would she then be worthy of some consideration?

I’d wager that none of you (including the author of the post) actually watched her video. The relevant portion starts about 4 minutes in. Please watch and then point out where she overreacted or called anybody a rapist. She simply pointed out something that would be obvious to any real man who had stopped for a moment to think: Asking a woman, alone at 4am in an elevator, back to your hotel room is more likely to make her feel threatened than attracted. It was a simple aside, and would have remained uncontroversial without Dawkins’ non-sequitor blast.

Please. Even if she HAD been raped the amount of chatter about this incident would be excessive at this point. KIDDING! I’m kidding. Sort of.

But seriously: someone hit on her, she turned him down, and that was the end of it. There was no need to mention it, and there was certainly no need to be so condescending with the “word to the wise, guys, don’t do that” bullshit. She’s in no position to tell anyone how to act, and she absolutely deserved to be taken down a peg for her haughty attitude.

That being said, it is always best to just ignore these things, and if people had paid her no heed to begin with it would just be another vlog that 99.9% of the internet would never see.

That’s the real take-away here: you should never bother arguing with internet feminists. They have infinite ammo for their stupidity cannons, and the whole thing is bound to devolve into an endless Rabbit Season/Duck season tete-a-tete.

One problem women have when they turn down a man’s advance is that they have now lost all potential leverage they had over him. A lot of women like men to think that they are interested or that there could be a possibility because it causes the man to look at the woman in a favorable light. Once that illusion is gone the man generally has no reason to do favors that will never be requited. The phrase, “go get that yourself” comes to mind.

OT: “Obama, the black liberal, the politically correct exemplar, the marketing dream, is as much a warmonger as George W. Bush. His score is six wars. Never in US history has a president prosecuted as many whistleblowers; yet, this truth telling, this exercise of true citizenship, is at the heart of America’s constitutional First Amendment. Obama’s greatest achievement is having seduced, co-opted and silenced much of liberal opinion in the United States, including the anti-war movement.”

A lot of people are calling Rebecca Watson a beta female, or a 3,4, 5.

While objectively true based on looks and attitude, within the atheist community she seems to have some status. She was the keynote speaker ! She has a popular blog. She benefits from the 4-to-1 male to female ratio at these conventions. If you search on youtube you’ll see an atheist panel discussion derailed for a staged wedding proposal, and her wedding ceremony.

Basically, she’s a 4 who is treated like a 9 at these conventions. Being hit on by a beta was probably a jarring reality check for her. She felt on top of the world, and then after Elevator Guy talked to her she felt like crap. Obviously it was something that he said, and therefore Elevator Guy was to blame (according to her hamster).

The sort of crap described in this post is one of the big reasons I got into game in the first place. Women are so disgusted with beta males they really do think of them as inherently rape-y. Game isn’t just a pre-requisite for getting into some woman’s pants. It’s increasingly becoming necessary just for being able to function socially in mixed company.

The fear of male strangers and the desire to be rude to them is not, technically, a feminist meme.

In fact, second wave feminism initially helped convince a lot of women that it was OK to talk to male strangers in public.

The problem with modern feminists like Rebecca Watson, is that they quasi want to return to the way it was before that. Ever since the second wave feminists hit menopause and they noticed men trying to talk to much younger females in public, the old feminists have been trying to reverse their own ideology and get the younguns like Rebecca to be dysfunctional when socializing with men (so the old feminists might retain a few options with some men).

The traditionalist world is, however, not necessarily the world we want to “return” to.

Just this morning in broad daylight with tons of people around I asked a married traditionalist type of non-feminist woman for directions as she was pushing her baby carriage (she had looked good from behind but turned out to have way too much weight in the stomach area).

She tried not to recognize my existence before murmuring dishonestly and unnecessarily that she didn’t know the obvious answer (I was looking for the main street 100 yards ahead). I walked out ahead of her but when I was stopped at the light, I smiled and said “looks like this is the street I wanted”. She was still way too rude. A simple smile would have sufficed. From the front she was getting way too fat and there was zero reason for her to think she had any SMV left while pushing that baby carriage.

I really should have totally put the rudeness out of my mind but I unnecessarily got perturbed and said “You know, statistically speaking your husband will probably leave you and with your inability to behave properly with polite men in public, you aren’t going to find another man the rest of your life”.

I was about to truthfully answer “Because you’ve already gotten fat” but I didn’t do that and turned in the direction I needed, mainly because, in a traditional society, my arguing with her further, and especially insulting her, would be grounds for a fight with her husband. There’s also no point in conversing with a woman any longer once a man realizes she’s neither attractive on the inside nor outside. 99% of her compatriots would have been friendly to me.

I immediately thought of this post and Rebecca’s after-the-fact view of the elevator event. This overweight non-feminist woman is probably telling a friend or the husband that a belligerent guy had rudely tried to pick her up on the street and that such should be out-lawed if politically possible. If peasants like her had blogs, she’d be skewering “foreigners who come here and think they can pick up married women on the street”.

The reality is that, by the time the words were coming out of my mouth asking for directions, I was already processing the fact that she was too fat for me. I had initially had the right to check to see if she was a hot single mom.

Until women warn each other to be polite to male strangers, men may as well only try to meet the hottest women in public. They, at least, will have more likely learned how to handle themselves with some sort of decency.

Jerry, are you still in Eastern Europe? If so, you should know better by now. First of all, from your description, the woman was not rude to you at all. We don’t smile at strangers in the street. If you’re walking around with a huge goofy smile on your face, people will think that you’re an idiot (literally, low IQ). She did not call you a name or tell you to leave her alone. The reason why she did not give you an answer, was most likely because she (rightly) assumed you were American. There has always been a strong dislike for Americans, and it has been recently renewed by the American-created worldwide financial crisis. I have no idea where you got the idea that 99% of her compatriots would be happy to talk to you. When I visit my home country, I hide the fact that I now live in the US. People’s attitudes change drastically when they find this out and not for the better.

And really, why do you think that we’re obligated to be nice to you? Aren’t you in your 50s/60s? What you, an aging sex tourist, have to offer her? If the woman is not stupid, she knows exactly what you’re after. Chances are, she is not after getting pumped and dumped. And even if she is, I’m sure she could find someone closer to her own age for that purpose, whose hair hasn’t all yet migrated from him head to his back and who doesn’t need five Viagra pills just to last 30 seconds. If I were in her situation, you would have not gotten anything other than “F-off, grandpa” after that comment about her husband. And really, is this what alpha behavior means? Resorting to childish insults if things don’t go your way?

You’re sock-puppeting and quit with the feminist phrases like sex tourist.

First of all, it’s rare for anyone to be so rude in public and I was noting that this particular woman was FAT (huge stomach) and not the type of hottie that normally flirts with me if I ask for directions (or politely gives directions). You’re the type of asshole who takes an anecdote of rare behavior and pretends that the person is describing normal behavior.

What you’re doing is projecting your own feminist-inspired hatred.

Second of all, Americans are well liked in most countries. It’s a major plus to be an American. You’re projecting your own lack of self esteem for not being born one.

Third: I can pass for 29 and never pass for older than 40. Nobody is every thinking Fuck off Grampa.

Fourthly, it’s a major mangina attitude for a male to assume that non-feminist women care that much about age. Guys in their 50s and 60s can land women 16-22. Only a defeatist decides it can’t be done. If you’re female, you were Americanized (or Anglosized).

Fifthly, if you’ve been reading the manosphere, you’ll know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SEX TOURIST, unless you’re referring to those who specifically go somewhere to use professional prostitutes like the women who go to Morocco do or guys who specifically want to use brothels in Bangkok . The idea that men are sex tourists who don’t live in the First World is a feminist concept. If you want to use feminist frames of reference head on over to Jezebel.

My point was that the first woman to be really rude to me in a long while had a huge belly and thus had low SMV.

And I already noted that it wasn’t necessary for me to make that remark to her. On top of that, someone with a stomach like that may as well have thought whatever she wanted.

A note to all the normal males who read this blog: Don’t let that asshole above make you believe for a second that Americans aren’t welcome in Russia and Eastern Europe or that 30 year age difference relationships aren’t easy to establish with the more highly intelligent among the women there.

You’ll see that bitterness mainly from low-self-esteem males who come from the area who are suffering from sour grapes because they can neither get young, hot tight American women nor the women from their home region.

Or you see the bad attitude from recently feminized (Americanized, Anglosized) Russian or EE females who’ve gotten older and lost all their SMV via aging and directly because of the bad attitude they acquired in the west.

I just got a notification with a reply from the attacker above but that comment seems to have been deleted by the host, possibly because it was contrived.

The attacker was not @PA but apparently an Americanized Russian woman “in her twenties” and living in the west apparently, who bragged in the comment about being engaged to a “hot guy my age” as if that doesn’t spell trouble for her when she hits the wall if she hasn’t already hit it.

She was filled with hatred for Americans and wrote that she and her Moscow friends (possible narrow circle of Nouiveau Riche white nationalists) rejoiced whenever a disaster happened in the United States.

She made the outrageous assumption that I would ever go to Moscow and not speak her language when I was there. She pretended that there was a Russian word for Americans called Америкос that was a put down and “all the girls hate Americans” in Moscow.

But I just asked a few19 year old Russian girls at a resort complex if this is true and they emphatically say that this word does not exist and only a very narrow group of white nationalist Moskovites would harbor bad feelings for Americans.

She also made the assumption that I or many other guys would go to Moscow and act like I owned the place (not good game and not possible with police checking foreigners’ documents on every street corner).

She then stated the lie that her friends are getting hit on by “old” Americans in Moscow. This is impossible because there aren’t enough Americans there for anyone to notice and 10s are available at the Hungry Duck for $500 if the guy is the type of guy who doesn’t want an LTR or marriage. And the average American traveler is about 38.

The comment should have been allowed to stay because it epitomized why a man should never bring a Russian woman into the USA or England. The feminist entitlement behind “am engaged to a hot guy my age” was astounding. There’s nothing more dangerous (for everyone) about feminist ideology than the idea that they should deliberately avoid dating older men when that is what all men, including their current boyfriends, will at least eventually want.

If male White Nationalists in the USA have helped spawn a small group of America hating females in Moscow, then they need to be cursed as traitors to their gender. I maintain that the anti-male elements of the White Nationalist movement are far worse than the feminists.

To the feminized or nationalist Russian woman living in the west: Chill out. There are barely any American men in Moscow these days and women outnumber men so much there that it isn’t a good idea for a woman to live there long term anymore than an American man should live in Alaska.

I just met a Russian soldier who served in Kosovo and he told me that Пиндос is similar to the Serbian word for Penguin. It referred to American soldiers in Bosnia and Kosovo who always walked around in full battle gear with bullet proof vests. A Russian general in Pristina famously said before his troops “Don’t call the penguins “penguins” because they could get insulted”.

As he laughed, I then punched the soldier in the arm pretending to be insulted.

It was obvious that this joking around was meant to build esprit de corps in the Russian units. They weren’t really thinking there was something wrong with American soldiers for wearing full battle gear in Serbian areas. If anything, while they disagreed with Clinton’s foreign policy, they saw the US soldiers as brave men.

But he said that, outside of the specific Russian military units that served in the Balkans, only a heavily indoctrinated group of Moscow insiders would know the term.

So much for hatred between two members of the white race.

That said, there are some low-class Russian soldier Колхозники who think they are supposed to hate Americans when they’re drunk.

Editor:

Although it is clear that the above westernized Russian woman was ruined (destroyed) by feminist ideology in the west and I’ve never met such a hate-filled woman when I was in Russia, her attitude also showed how dangerous White Nationalist ideology can be when it’s used against Americans instead of by Americans (against Mexicans for instance).

Considering how few worthwhile white women are left in the USA, it should be clear that internationalized White Nationalist ideology, that says that women should stick to their own nations’ men, is as great a threat as feminism itself.

This boomerang effect is one reason why Gorbachev and I have both stated that White Nationalism is inherently a mangina ideology, at least when it implies that Russian women should mate only with Russian men.

If the Mexicans were bringing enough 9s and 10s with them, American men would not be complaining about the Mexican Invasion.

She should have been grateful: she’s a 6 at best, an obvious beta female.

The differential treatment granted to beta males versus beta females is interesting: beta males are hated almost universally, whereas beta females are given much more deference, even if it’s not always completely genuine. This asymmetry between what are essentially identical types (in terms of value) is puzzling.

Perhaps it’s a way of compensating for the extended sexual longevity of men generally?

A corollary to that is: Women should know that a man who tries to game a woman may be very quickly reassessing how attracted he is to her, based on the physical and verbal cues of being close to her physically as opposed to seeing her from afar.

I was no longer attracted to the woman above before my opening sentence was finished.

Elevator guy could, theoretically, have lost interest in Rebecca before he finished asking her to his room. The smell of her sweat or her breath could have already started to turn him off and, being right next to her, he could have had a different conclusion about her sexiness than from being 5 yards away. He could have continued his question about her going to his room because men are programmed to at least finish a sentence. There is no guarantee that the guy would have wanted sex with Rebecca.

Last night I talked to two single women home from college and sitting in a park. For twenty minutes I thought one was extra hot and I kept up an active conversation with them. But when it came time for me to sit next to her and exchange phone numbers, I decided that she was too small and thin for me and that she hadn’t really said anything interesting herself. Sure, I continued with the number exchange, but whatever she’s thinking about the whole thing now, I doubt she understands that I’m not really interested.

Throughout history, the leaders of relatively large communities, such as the mayor and the bishop, have enjoyed facial recognition by all the women and, thus, deference and attention upon approaching the women (such as in getting on an elevator with one). They were and are known quantities and not just status holders.

Sadly for the men in the communities they supposedly served, it was probably always the leaders’ human nature to value this as an asset and not want to dilute it by trying to establish a more “pro-male” culture where the women would be as accepting of all men approaching them.

One can easily see that this would destroy the advantage the leaders had.

Apparently half of all men have not reproduced throughout history. The leaders obviously didn’t care about the competition. They would have actively made social life difficult for most of the men in their communities.

The same thing would apply to celebrities like Brad Pitt, the Beatles, Elvis and George Clooney. You’ve never seen any of them say “Why don’t you women swoon and wave at regular men like you do to us”. They’d sooner throw money into the wind than squander their advantage by publicly admonishing women to be nicer to male strangers.

The trick for men is to find places that are an exception to the rule, often places where women outnumber men drastically and often sub-cultures of sub-cultures.

Or work more at being visually famous than rich.

The atheist sub-culture sounds like a dud. I can’t see too many smart males signing up for next year’s conference in Dublin. In fact, any reader of this forum would have been warned years ago to avoid the Anglosphere.

The above was meant entirely in terms of dealing with the issue of being a stranger or unknown quantity, not in terms of any man in history being a beta or whatnot.

Game can overcome the stranger barrier but that barrier is there for two reasons: 1 – natural fear by a woman’s entire family of her impregnation by a stranger and 2 – community leaders not wanting to make the culture any more pro-male than necessary, in order not to squander their own facial recognition advantage.

Someone just posted above that the atheist community is 4:1 men to women.

That is reason enough for any male with an IQ above 90 to not bother going to any social events.

While there are probably alternative reasons why night clubs are always so damned loud (including the idea that women want a harsh environment where only brave men will approach them), the main one has always seemed to me that the true VIPs, meaning mainly the owners, bartenders and bouncers, don’t really want the regular male customers to connect that much more with the women than necessary for the place to have a cool reputation. Legendarily, these “insiders” brag about their own conquests with their own female customers.

There was a discussion a month ago on another thread where bouncers and former bouncers were laughing about how THEY were the ones who scored with the women mostly at certain joints. That’s not cool info for would-be customers.

Noone’s ever complained to the Better Business Bureau but, if this attitude could be understood better by the male public, it’s a blatant betrayal of the male client, the one paying the bills that keep the night clubs in business.

This is why I’d normally not ever go to a loud night club unless I know the owner or the bouncer or bartenders are looking out for MY best interests and not their own. I’m not going to work for them by providing the pre-selection for them as a client that wants to be at their joint. It has to be the other way around if I’m paying for entry or drinks.

Compare night clubs with black tie invitation only parties. In the latter, the “help” has no status, which is the way it should be if a male is paying good money to be there.

So right, Jerry. Its one reason I hate going to those places unless I’m with a chick, meeting chicks, or there is a globally-renowned DJ. Basically, they are primarily a scam on regular guys to underwrite the cost framing the bartenders, bouncers, band, and bar owners as alphas so they can get laid, who probably get 95% of the heterosexual sex that ever arises from clubs. In fact, I’m confident its become easier for chicks to hook up with each other in most clubs than it has for a regular guy to get a chick home or even digits.

Needless to say, major league sports are like this as well. I’ve seen women practically masturbating in the stands over the athletes. I’m generally not going to encourage all that especially by buying paraphernalia and announcing on Twitter how much I’m cheering for the team.

Gladiators in ancient Rome were given some great sex apparently (does anyone have good links on that), which would have been at the cost of male spectators. At least the gladiators mostly had to pay with their lives for that.

I used to be a big sports fan, but can’t get into it anymore for that very reason. Especially where I live, there are ballers and retired ballers everywhere that I have to compete with, and every time I’m working on a chick that meets one, it sets me back at least six months.

Anyways, speaking of getting amateurs into PFP, today I had a nooner with the spinner I recently commented about in connection with another post, and last night, she went out solo to a vanilla club (Green Iguana Veterans, for you Tampaphiles) looking for girls that she could break into the biz and pimp out (she’s never pimped before, just hooked). Two hours later, she ended up leaving the club with a group of three, and the four headed to her hotel to set up shop.

I told her next time she finds a newbie, to call me ASAP so I can be the one to break her in.

We ( women) need to show our loyalty to each other by NOT calling us out especially on a male dominated blog. We will NEVER be one of the guys, cause we are NOT! I have three brothers and I KNOW I will never be a guy. We ( us girls) need to stick together, support each other. Silence can be interpreted in many ways. Nothing need to be said even if you disagree. This is a male dominated site and I swore to myself I will NEVER on any male site curse my fellow women, fem or not and say anything negative about them even if I am itching to call them out for it. Some things are better done in privacy. Us women need to be kind to each another. We need to, for the survival of our gender. We should not shame ourselves especially in front of men. I’m not saying men are the enemies, but they are not in our gender group and we need to be loyal to our own gender. That’s all we have. Let’s nurture it. In dealing with some of the men here, I simply ignore those I disagree with. My objective is NOT to change anyone’s mind and make them listen to me and take on my view. WHY? I am me and you are you and that’s fine! Just because we make our point here, it doesn’t mean it’s THE WORD. So I have fun and engage those that I like and make a point when I feel compelled. After all, it’s ONLY a blog. In LIFE, that’s when we need to try to make a difference, face to face one day at a time.

Sorry What. I have been there and done that with the sisterhood thing. I simply don’t believe in it on a grander scale. I have a nice set of wonderful female friends (as few as they are) who I know i can trust, are mature, not insecure and hateful for no reason.

Every woman’s experience in this world is different. While most women experience pain and hurt from men all their lives and connect more with women, its been the opposite for me my entire life! i have been screwed over, hated on, beat up, lied, picked on from WOMEN. Most of the problems I have experienced in life in terms of people being mean to me have been from WOMEN.

When I was down and out, it seemed women liked more. When I started getting myself together and trying to lose the weight I gain, I was told I was “shallow”.

I just recently left a blog where I *thought* there was a sisterhood. I belonged to this blog for almost a year. These women always respected my opinion and such and never picked fights with me. As soon as I posted a pic on my avatar the claws came out- and everything I said was used as a way to create straw man arguments (so they can create drama and pick a fight where there was none) to make me feel like shit for having expressed a different opinion on some matters. I also noticed my comments were often ignored compared to the past when I never had a pic up.

Women can be cruel and hurtful to each other. And its b/c some women while mouthing sisterhood, haven’t dealt with their own insecurities and need to feel competitive towards other women for a variety of reasons.

Take a look on the Bar girl thread. Some chick named Spiralina felt the need to LOG ON to put down the men and call them “betas” b/c they were interacting with me and “falling over themselves”. WHAT? She felt the need to come onto the board to simply “call out the men” who were interacting with me. If that aint hate and insecurity I don’t know what it is.

Sisterhood on a grander scale – It’s a bunch of BS and I’m going to call it for what it is. Sorry for those females that have a problem with it – too bad.

“We ( us girls) need to stick together, support each other. Silence can be interpreted in many ways. Nothing need to be said even if you disagree. This is a male dominated site and I swore to myself I will NEVER on any male site curse my fellow women, fem or not and say anything negative about them even if I am itching to call them out for it. Some things are better done in privacy. Us women need to be kind to each another. We need to, for the survival of our gender. We should not shame ourselves especially in front of men. I’m not saying men are the enemies, but they are not in our gender group and we need to be loyal to our own gender. That’s all we have. Let’s nurture it.

How, exactly, is “our gender” in danger of extinction? And how is it that our gender is all we have? Please, I have a family. They are my support. I am not identified by my so called womanhood and no woman should be. How can one possibly identify with half of the planet?! Yes, all women have commonalities (hamster, want alpha, can have babies, etc.) but the thought that I am somehow supposed to stand by and protect other women, especially when they are being idiots, is not going to happen. And since I am never going to meet any of the women here, if I disagree with them, how am I supposed to converse with them in private? (And no, I will not do email. No time and no desire.)

I will be loyal to my people and when a feminist is trying to take down my children and the rest of my family, I don’t care what their gender is. I will call them out.

“A man who directly approaches a woman in a context that offers her an unmessy exit is, in the woman’s hindbrain, a confident man unafraid of potential rejection. This is a tacit demonstration of higher value that will immediately set the tone of the pickup in the man’s favor.”

Reminds me of an approach I did as a high school freshman. A kid from math class dared me to approach this girl who was standing on the side walk right outside the gate that led to the main entrance of the school. It was 5th period lunch. She was flanked by two friends and there was a sparse crowd of people around. Being absolutely fearless (and not really being attracted since she has these red, splotchy birth marks on her face) I stepped right up to her and made the direct sell.

“Want to go out with me?”

She replied rather politely, “No, I have a boyfriend.”

“No problem, bye,” I said.

Sure, I didn’t seal the deal, but I felt invincible. Besides, the kid who dared me knew she was taken, and sent me on a fools errand. He looked at me amazed after the approach. He couldn’t believe I took the dare.

Try it sometime. You’ll feel more powerful approaching a woman in a situation where you are that exposed.

“The New Statesman says Dawkin’s career as a public intellectual is kaput.”

Exaggeration. But the lesson is clear. All men who think atheism will stand against the feminist cultural imperialism, think again. The Pope of Non-Belief himself is fighting for his very intellectual life after perpetrating a perceived anti-woman comment in an internet comment thread.

If it doesn’t seem rational why feminism and atheism find themselves such ready allies, and if it doesn’t seem fair that feminism would always trump atheist considerations, it’s because you haven’t dug far enough down. Feminism is essentially religious, grounded in faith based on sentiment and impervious to scientific falsification. There can be no debate and no mutual compromise, only an ordering of concerns one above the other. We are watching how that order plays out in the spontaneous rallying of the masses around an internet-nobody to depose a leading light of the movement.

The battle lines are coming into focus. Chose your side. If you want above all to let fly your loud certainties about the nothingness, then you are unwittingly submitting to the feminist imperative by default. Meantime, the faithful haven’t just been saying for millennia …

Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

… we have also been practicing what we preach, and we have been offering olive branches to the anti-femme secularists. My presence on this blog is one small indicator of the mutual pursuit of our identical interests. FDR and Churchill allied with the less manifest evil Stalin to defeat the more proximate evil Hitler. You don’t squabble about abstractions among your co-conspirators when the queen has left herself vulnerable to overthrow. Stop with the gratuitous jabs that create division.

Full disclosure: There will be no compromise with us ultimately either. Eventually we must have it out too, just as the Cold War inevitably followed WWII. But for now there is no real way to choose atheism and manliness before making it through the preliminaries, where those who place their faith in History must first vanquish those who place their faith in herstory.

Full disclosure: There will be no compromise with us ultimately either. Eventually we must have it out too, just as the Cold War inevitably followed WWII. But for now there is no real way to choose atheism and manliness before making it through the preliminaries.

No. You manginas who have a problem with middle aged men having sex with 18 year olds ARE THE ENEMY.

There will be no compromise even before the feminists are defeated.

You’re on the wrong blog or, more precisely, you’re trying to subvert this one.

Atheism does not “assert” that God does not exist. It merely rejects the prior theist assertion of Its existence as arbitrary for lack of evidence. There literally is nothing for an atheist to prove or disprove.

The onus of evidence is with the theists, and they haven’t satisfied this single,
most basic requirement of rational cognition for millenia… and yet they pillory us for “acting on faith”! That’s like Heidi Fleisch calling out married women as “whores” for having sex with their husbands.

Nope. Go back in time and remember your Latin class. Oh, sorry you did not have one… Let me help you then.

The prefix “a” means the opposite, it can be easily replaced by “not-“. Typical/Atypical, Symmetry/Asymmetry, etc.

Atheist sometime say that the god simply does not enter the picture for them, but that is just a sleight of hand. If you attribute something to god, they would protest too much that definitely’s not the case. They won’t say “I don’t kno” or ” I don’t have enough data to decide either way”

Unattractive man who expresses sexual desire for a woman = misogynist.
Attractive man who does not express sexual desire for a woman = misogynist.

Rebecca was so traumatised by this incident that she broadcast it to the whole planet. When the opportunity to trumpet the minutiae of her romantic dramas and the fact that men (however undesirable) want to do it with her arises, all of a feminist’s stern dogma disappears like snow on a summer’s day.

“In brief, a man entered the elevator with her at 4AM after a ‘skeptics’ conference had ended, and proceeded to awkwardly and nervously ask her out to coffee, which she declined.”

well, just to get the story straight, he apparently asked her back to his room for coffee (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!), not to go out for coffee.

but, yeah, what you said (she didn’t like him ergo he is a potential rapist).

plus, she had just been at the hotel BAR with this guy and a whole bunch of others until FOUR IN THE MORNING. AT A CONFERENCE. what the h*ck did she expect?! has she never been to a conference before? and has she never been out drinking with a bunch of guys ’til 4 a.m. before?